Kevin Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325,563 U.S.C.(
N/AOUTCOME:
The location of timeclocks at Saint-Gobain resulted in Kevin Kasten and other workers not receiving credit for their time donning and doffing their work-related protective gear. Kasten filed a class an ... d collective action regarding the lack of compensation for donning and doffing time and the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin found in Kasten's, and the other employees', favor. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 556 F. Supp. 2d 941, 954 (W.D. Wis. 2008). Kasten also filed a related retaliation action regarding his termination for making repeated oral complaints about the placement of the timeclocks. In this matter the district court granted SaintGobain's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") did not protect Kasten's oral complaints because the protected action of "filing a complaint" under the Act required a written document. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed and denied rehearing en bane, holding that "[ o ]ne carinot 'file' an oral complaint; there is no document, such as a paper or record, to deliver to someone who can put it in its proper place." Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F. 3d 834, 838 (ih Cir. 2009). The United States Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit finding in favor of Kasten and holding in a 6-2 decision that "an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the [Act's] anti-retaliation provision." Kasten was represented by Nichols Kaster, PLLP throughout his litigation against Saint-Gobain, including in the district court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision is a triumph for the rights of every employee. It set a new FLSA anti-retaliation standard and guaranteed employees protection from retaliation when they complain orally or informally about their employer's conduct. Had the Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's result, employee complaints would have had to be in writing in order to afford the employee protection from retaliation. This result would have been disastrous for the many minimum wage and low-wage workers who rely on the FLSA to protect their right to be paid for their work. Requiring these workers to file written complaints asserting their rights, or to faceretaliatory termination, would have severely hindered the goals of the federal minimum wage and overtime laws, and been a devastating blow to employees. The decision received coverage in the numerous nationwide publications including the National Law Review and the Washington Post.
