Reference no: EM132258628

Case 1: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011) (Pagnattaro 17th ed. p. 658) Petitioner Kasten brought an antiretaliation suit against his former employer, respondent (Saint-Gobain), under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“the Act”), which provides minimum wage, maximum hour, and overtime pay rules; and which forbids employers “to discharge . . . any employee because such employee has filed any complaint” alleging a violation of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §215(a)(3). In a related suit, the District Court found that Saint-Gobain violated the Act by placing timeclocks in a location that prevented workers from receiving credit for the time they spent donning and doffing work related protective gear. In this suit Kasten claims that he was discharged because he orally complained to company officials about the timeclocks. The District Court granted Saint-Gobain summary judgment, concluding that the Act's antiretaliation provision did not cover oral complaints. Kasten alleges that he repeatedly called the unlawful timeclock location to Saint-Gobain's attention—in accordance with Saint-Gobain's internal grievance resolution procedure. Kasten adds that he “raised a concern” with his shift supervisor that “it was illegal for the time clocks to be where they were” because of Saint-Gobain's exclusion of “the time you come in and start doing stuff”; he told a human resources employee that “if they were to get challenged on” the location in court, “they would lose”; he told his lead operator that the location was illegal and that he “was thinking about starting a lawsuit about the placement of the time clocks”; and he told the human resources manager and the operations manager that he thought the location was illegal and that the company would “lose” in court. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Act) sets forth employment rules concerning minimum wages, maximum hours, and overtime pay. 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq. The Act contains an antiretaliation provision that forbids employers “to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the Act], or has testified or is about to testify in such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” §215(a)(3) (emphasis added). Kasten says that Saint-Gobain located its timeclocks between the area where Kasten and other workers put on (and take off) their work-related protective gear and the area where they carry out their assigned tasks. That location prevented workers from receiving credit for the time they spent putting on and taking off their work clothes—contrary to the Act's requirements. In a related suit the District Court agreed with Kasten, finding that Saint-Gobain's “practice of not compensating . . . for time spent donning and doffing certain required protective gear and walking to work areas” violated the Act. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 556 F. Supp. 2d 941, 954 (WD Wis. 2008). In this suit Kasten claims unlawful retaliation. He says that Saint-Gobain discharged him because he orally complained to Saint-Gobain officials about the timeclocks. 1. Kasten’s complaint about retaliation for his victory in federal district court regarding the location of the time clocks must be in writing to be effective. 2. The FLSA requires Saint-Gobain to compensate its workers for the time they spend donning and doffing work related protective gear. 3. Kasten and his coworkers are entitled to time-and-a-half compensation for the hours they spend donning and doffing work related protective gear if that work is undertaken after the 40-hour workweek has been completed. 4. If Kasten were accidentally and seriously injured after donning his protective work gear and while walking to the time clock to punch in, he would be entitled to damages from the federal worker’s compensation program. 5. Assuming Saint-Gobain has 50 or more employees, Kasten would be entitled up to 12 weeks unpaid leave and the maintenance of his seniority and employment benefits, while recovering from his injuries under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993.