Important Employment Case

The funeral protest case received a lot of press while some criminal justice cases did as well in Slate and elsewhere, but there was a statutory case that recently was orally argued that warrants some coverage too. Scotusblog links us to this summary:

Kevin Kasten filed an anti-retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) after his employer terminated him for multiple time clock violations. He had orally complained about the placement of the time clocks but had not filed a written complaint. The location of the clock precluded employees from punching in and out until after they had donned or removed safety gear. As a result, workers were not paid for time spent putting on or removing safety gear. The issue is whether FLSA anti-retaliation clause applies to internal, oral complaints.

Many justices were wary about the word "filing" -- how can you orally "file" something?  And, that is required pursuant to the law in question.  As noted by a comment here (the blog itself predicts a loss to the workers/government, the Labor Department [hey TPM, remember them?] on their side), the point here is retaliation.  Why wouldn't retaliation arising from oral complaints not be covered?  Someone is fired for complaining to a supervisor and it's acceptable?  The textual argument, one the government supports here (and administrative agencies have broad discretion here in applying text with more than one possible meaning), should favor Kasten here. As Justice Ginsburg notes, referencing a 1930s provision, what about the illiterate? 

Without more research, I can't determine the proper path, but the scope of the issue is notable; from the original summary:

Regardless of which way the Court rules, its decision will likely have wide-sweeping effects for numerous employers and employees. Amici note that a study of worker complaints about wage and hour violations found that 95.5 percent of workers raise issues with their supervisors verbally. A 2008 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 72 percent of Wage and Hour Division investigations were instigated by worker tips. Most of these tips are reported orally. In its amicus brief, the Solicitor of Labor emphasizes that many federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC, permit employees to file complaints orally, either in person or over the telephone. If the Supreme Court were to rule that a complaint must be in writing to be protected under FLSA, such ruling would require the government, and likely many private employers, to change their established practices.

And, from another analysis:

In some ways this case is a bit of an odd-ball.  Over the past couple of years the only employment civil rights laws that have been relatively safe at the Supreme Courthouse have been those protecting employees against retaliation.  If the Court rules against employees in this case and holds that the FLSA anti-retaliation provision only protects employees who lodge a formal, written complaint with the government, they will effectively end anti-retaliation protection for many if not most employees in overtime cases and will call into question retaliation protections found in other statutes.

As we focus on some hot button cases, these important statutory cases (remember Ledbetter?) should not be lost in the mix.  The oral argument can be accessed here -- it is fairly  interesting.  One more thing: it does give a person a chance to hear one of the big names in Supreme Court advocacy, the company lawyer here.