Workplace Investigation Cannot Be Both Sword and Shield

Last week, the Portage County Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing the confidentiality of workplace investigation notes, reports, recommendations and recordings of witness interviews when the employer’s attorney conducted the investigation and interviews.  Smith v. Technology House, Ltd., 2019-Ohio-2670.   The defendant employer had broadly asserted its Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense of taking prompt remedial action, but had not specifically cited to its attorney’s investigation as the basis for that defense.  Nonetheless, the trial court found that the interview recordings, report and recommendations should be produced in discovery.  The Court of Appeals reversed in part on the grounds that the employer had not specifically waived attorney-client privilege or yet asserted that the investigation was the basis for its defense, but held that the recording of the plaintiff’s interview must be produced because she was clearly adverse to the employer at the time and had her own attorney.  It also ordered an in camera inspection of the investigation materials to determine what else may be outside privilege and work product protection because it predated the investigation, etc.  Finally, it noted that privilege may not be used as both a sword (i.e., defense) and shield (confidential). 


According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff alleged that she complained about sexual harassment.  The employer, fearing litigation, immediately retained counsel to conduct an investigation, which began the following day.  When the plaintiff was brought into a room with the company’s attorney, she left the room to contact her attorney and then informed the employer’s attorney that she was represented.  He still interviewed her, a few managers and a few hourly employees.  All of the interviews were apparently recorded.  When litigation commenced, the plaintiff sought during discovery a copy of the interview recordings of her and her non-supervisory co-workers as well as any notes and documents related to those interviews.  The employer responded that the information was protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege.   The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, but the discovery order was broader than the request in that it ordered the production of all recordings and documents related to the investigation.  The defendant was also ordered to correct its discovery responses to identify the attorney who conducted the investigation.   The employer appealed the discovery order.


The employer pointed out that the Ohio Supreme Court has found workplace investigations by attorneys to be covered by the attorney-client privilege.   Therefore, the trial court’s broad order compelled the production of materials that were protected by privilege.   Nonetheless, the Court found that not everything related to the investigation was privileged.  “Documents and records whose existence preceded a factual investigation or were created independent of such investigation, i.e., independent of any communication between attorney and client, would not be protected by the attorney client privilege.”


“Also, the identity of persons who participated in the investigation is not covered by the privilege.”  Therefore, the attorney’s participation in the investigation is not confidential.

Further, the recording of the interview with the plaintiff was not protected by privilege because she was, by then, an adverse party with her own attorney.

Finally, the attorney-client privilege does not protect the recording of the interview with Smith as this interview may not properly be said to have occurred within the context of the attorney-client relationship.  In the case of a corporate client, Ohio cases have generally held that the privilege extends to communications between counsel and employees of the corporate client.  . . . In light of the foregoing, Technology House could not reasonably expect that the substance of the interview would have the character of a confidential communication between an attorney and client which underlies the reason for the privilege.  At the time of Smith’s interview, a de facto adversarial relationship existed between the parties and, therefore, the substance of that interview falls outside the scope of the privilege.

The Court also found that the attorney’s assessment and materials about the plaintiff’s interview would be protected as work product.   However, the application of privilege or work product to a particular document requires an analysis of the particular document and that was not possible on the current record because the employer failed to provide or produce a privilege log describing the documents being withheld as privileged and work product.

Upon remand, the trial court of necessity must either conduct an in camera review of the compelled discovery to determine whether the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine exempts them from discovery or require the production of description of the documents sufficient to make such a determination, noting that the following types of materials are not privileged: documents and records whose existence preceded Attorney Thompson’s factual investigation or were created independent of that investigation (supra at ¶ 24); the identity of persons who participated in the investigation (supra at ¶ 25); and any recordings or transcripts of the substance of the interview with [the plaintiff].

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion of waiver as premature on the current record.  The plaintiff argued that the employer’s assertion of its Faragher/Ellerth defense waived privilege and work product protection for the investigation. 

Although no Ohio court has adopted this position, it has been held in other jurisdictions that the assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth defense effects a waiver of any privilege attaching to a party’s investigation of the alleged harassment.  “When an employer puts the reasonableness of an internal investigation at issue by asserting the Faragher/Ellerth defense, the employer waives any privilege that might otherwise apply to documents concerning that investigation,” including “‘not only the [investigative] report itself, but [ ] all documents, witness interviews, notes and memoranda created as part of and in furtherance of the investigation.” . . . .

The issue of whether Technology House and Gear waived the privilege attaching to Attorney Thompson’s investigation by asserting a Faragher/Ellerth defense may be resolved by recourse to “[o]rdinary waiver principles” and the “animating maxim that the privilege cannot ‘be used as both sword and shield.’”  In re Itron, Inc., 883 F.3d 553, 558 (5th Cir.2018).  That is: “when a party entitled to claim the attorney-client privilege uses confidential information against his adversary (the sword), he implicitly waives its use protectively (the shield) under that privilege.”  (Citation omitted.)  Id.  

Accordingly, courts do not find a waiver of privilege unless a party indicates its reliance  on a particular investigation in its assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth defense.  The “clear majority view” is that the defense must be “premised, in whole * * * or [in] part, on the results of an * * * investigation.”  . .  . . “This holding aligns with the numerous cases across jurisdictions finding waiver ‘when a client asserts reliance on an attorney’s advice as an element of a claim or defense,’ * * * and the many dozens of cases finding no waiver when no such reliance has occurred.”

In the present case, Technology House and Gear’s assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth defense does not acknowledge the existence of much less indicate reliance upon Attorney Thompson’s investigation.  The mere assertion that they exercised “reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any alleged sexually harassing behavior” does not constitute a waiver of any privilege applicable to the investigation.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

OWBPA Exhibits Are Admissible to Challenge Whether Plaintiff Was Terminated as Part of RIF or as Pretext

Last month, the Summit County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an FMLA retaliation claims because the trial court had not considered the attachments to separation agreements (required by the OWBPA) showing the number of employees selected for a reduction in force and severance pay to impeach the employer’s explanation for the plaintiff’s termination.  Kane v. Inpatient Med. Servs., Inc., 2019-Ohio-1975.  The plaintiff argued that the employer’s failure to include her on one of the exhibits shows that she was not actually terminated as part of the reduction in force, but the trial court excluded the exhibit as evidence of a compromise.  The court of appeals held that Rule 408 only bars such evidence to impute liability and its amount, and not to impeach a witness.  The Court, however, agreed that the plaintiff’s jury trial waiver was valid.


According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant employer purchased the company for which the plaintiff had worked for two years as a regional vice president shortly before she began maternity leave. The plaintiff was terminated when she returned from her second maternity leave and was told that her position had been eliminated as part of a reduction in force.  She filed suit alleging FMLA interference and retaliation and the trial court granted summary judgment to the employer.  The trial court refused to consider two exhibits which the plaintiff had submitted in an attempt to show that the employer’s stated explanation was pretextual.   The first was an unsigned separation agreement which contained the exhibits required under the Older Worker Benefit Protection act reflecting the lay off of only 14 Indiana employees of company acquired by the employer and which did not include the plaintiff.  The second was the same exhibit from a different separation agreement which reflected that only she and the company president had been laid off.   Both of these, she claimed, conflicted with the employer’s answers to interrogatories that 15-20 employees had been laid off and from which entities had been laid off in the reduction in force. The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to consider these exhibits.


Ohio Rule of Evidence 408 prohibits the consideration of offers of compromise to show either liability or the amount of liability.  The rule further provides that:

Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Because the plaintiff was not attempting to use the exhibits to show liability or the amount of liability, the exhibits were admissible to impeach the employer’s explanation for her termination as required to show that its explanation was pretextual. 


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Just Cause Policy Requires Some Fault Before Immediate Termination

Last month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s trial verdict on the discharge of an unclassified university employee on the grounds that the basis for his termination – that the university president believed that he had engaged in visa fraud based on a federal investigation which did not result in an indictment – did not constitute documented “just cause” based on applicable laws, rules and regulations. Fendley v. Wright State Univ., 2019-Ohio-1963.  The university’s policy required "documented just cause  as provided in applicable laws, rules or regulations.”  However, the belief of the university president was never documented and merely being under investigation for potential wrongdoing does not violate any law, rule or regulation.


According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was an unclassified staff member for 11 years.  He and two other employees were administratively suspended in May with pay pending a federal and internal investigation into alleged visa fraud. After meeting with the federal investigators, the president believed that the plaintiff had engaged in visa fraud and decided to terminate his employment in August. The plaintiff was never indicted or charged with visa fraud.  Under university policy, an employee with 11 years of service could be terminated without cause with 9 months notice and could be immediately terminated “for documented just cause as provided in applicable laws, rules, and regulations or because of financial exigency.”  The trial court and magistrate determined that the University had just cause because of the ongoing federal investigation and the belief formed by the university president after meeting with federal investigators.  The Court of Appeals reversed.


The Court found that the policy did not permit the university to simply fire the employee for any lawful reason as would exist in employment at will.   The policy did not provide that the employee could be immediately terminated “as provided at law.”  The Court rejected the belief of the university president as a basis for the termination decision because it was not mentioned in either letter that suspended the plaintiff or in the letter terminating his employment.   Accordingly, the belief of the university president was not “documented” as required by the university policy.  It also refused to find the federal investigation into potential wrongdoing to be sufficient to constitute just cause because it was not indicative of any fault by the plaintiff.  No identified law, rule or regulation is violated by being under investigation for potential wrongdoing.   The university’s internal investigation likewise never documented any violation by plaintiff of any law, rule or regulation.


The dissent would have affirmed on the basis of the belief of the university president.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Children’s Business Does Not Rise Like a Phoenix to Avoid ERISA Withdrawal Liability of Parents’ Business

In March, the Sixth Circuit applied the NLRA’s alter ego test to determine that the similar business of adult children was the alter ego of the parents’ business for purposes of imposing ERISA pension plan withdrawal liability. Trustees of Operating Engineers Local 324 Pension Fund v. Bourdow Contracting, Inc., No. 18-1491 (6^th Cir. 3-21-19).  The defendant company waived its objection to the application of the NLRA standard because it argued in favor of that standard to the trial court.  


Moreover, according to the Court’s opinion, the facts showed that the two businesses shared common management and ownership, although the parents were not owners or managers of the new business and had been the majority owners of the bankrupt business.  The new business was formed just days after the parent’s company missed their first withdrawal payment and bid for their first job days before the parent’s company filed for bankruptcy.  90% of the new business operations overlapped with 50% of the parents’ company business.  Although the new business operated out of a new location, it retained over 50% of the former employees and hired the same outside advisers.   The new company purchased all new equipment because the parents’ equipment was sold in bankruptcy. Almost 70% of the customers of the new company had been customers of the bankrupt company.   The owners of the new company were involved in preparing the bankruptcy petition of their parents’ company and used the family name in their business name in order to capitalize on the good will created by their parents’ business.   Because more factors weighed in favor of liability than against, the Court affirmed alter ego liability being imposed.   The Court also rejected a res judicata defense based on the discharge in bankruptcy of the parent company’s withdrawal liability because there was not an overlap in the cause of action.  The operative facts of the alter ego theory were not the same claim  for withdrawal liability asserted in the bankruptcy proceeding.


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

FLSA Cases Keeping Sixth Circuit Court Occupied

In the past month, the Sixth Circuit has issued a number of FLSA decisions affecting employers and employees.  Last week, the Court rejected objections to a class action settlement on behalf of exotic dancers.  Jane Does 1-2 v. Déjà Vu Consulting, Inc., No. 17-1801 (6^th Cir. 6-3-19).  In another, the Court rejected claims for overtime compensation by certain Fire Battalion Chiefs on the grounds that they were exempt employees and were not entitled to extra standby pay.  Holt v. City of Battle Creek, No. 18-1981 (6^th Cir. 6-3-19).   In another, the Court affirmed the trial court judgment imposing liability for unpaid overtime compensation for employees of a small lumber company, but remanded for a redetermination of the amount of damages due which did not include time spent on bona fide meal breaks or commuting to and from work.  Secretary of Labor v. Timberline South, LLC, No. 18-1763 (6^th Cir. 5-29-19).  In that case, the Court also refined the test for enterprise coverage for employers which only purchase and use equipment locally, but that which is manufactured out of state.  It also rejected the employer’s good faith defense for seeking incomplete advice from a non-expert.  Finally, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a FLSA retaliation claim where the plaintiff failed to show that she had ever communicated any complaints about unpaid overtime.   Rogers v. The Webstraurant Store, Inc., No. 18-6229 (6^th Cir. 5-23-19). Her “vague, non-adversarial conversations about staying late are not sufficiently “serious occasion[s]” to be considered complaints under the FLSA.”


Déjà Vu Consulting involved the settlement of class claims (brought under both Civil Rule 23 and FLSA § 216(b)) that exotic dancers had been misclassified as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wages  and been subject to illegal wage deductions.  It was similar to prior litigation which involved many of the same dancers and defendants.  Many, if not all, of the 28,177 class members had signed agreements with the defendants containing arbitration clauses with prevailing parties being entitled to recover attorney’s fees, etc.   Accordingly, the Court found it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to affirm the settlement reached in light of the risk to the plaintiffs of being compelled to individually arbitrate their claims and possibly be financially liable to the defendants.   The Court also found that formal discovery was not necessary in light of the extensive discovery conducted in the prior case involving many of the same type of claims and parties.  The settlement provided for both injunctive and financial relief.   The financial settlement of $6.5M was divided among $1M in cash payments, $4.5 attributed to a secondary settlement pool that could be claimed while working at the defendant clubs in the future and $900K to class counsel.  The dissent would have remanded for a recalculation of the counsel fees because she characterized a requirement of the settlement – that the plaintiff dancers work at a defendant club to receive a financial benefit from the secondary pool of monetary relief – as a “coupon” under Class Action Fairness Act which can only be considered for purposes of evaluating attorney’s fees based on the coupons redeemed instead of merely the pool of money set aside.


Holt involved claims for unpaid overtime and standby time by two Fire Battalion Chiefs, the second in command in the Fire Department hierarchy. Their primary job duties involved management and administration.   They received an extra 1.5 hours of pay for each day when they were on call during the night shift (in addition to overtime if they were actually called back to work) and were required to monitor the radio and pager while on call.   They could not leave town or drink alcohol when on call because they might be called to a fire scene.


In evaluating their exempt status, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a narrow reading of exemptions should be given in light of the Supreme Court’s prior Encino Motorcar decision. The trial court found that Battalion Chief’s primary duty was managerial in nature because they

were required to directly supervise lower-ranking officers and personnel, evaluate personnel, administer and enforce department policy, and coordinate the day-to-day operations of the department . . . .  the battalion chiefs were expected to “take charge and operate as the incident commanders at the scene of a fire.”  

Further, one “was ‘in charge’ of all suppression personnel and [the other] was ‘in charge’ or ‘oversaw’ the training division.  Approximately 27 lieutenants and captains directly reported to [one] who monitored their adherence to standards.  Moreover, Chief [Hausman] testified that if any fire fighter ‘had a problem[,]’ he or she would take it to plaintiff Holt.”  In addition,  although the trial “court recognized that Plaintiffs did not have independent authority to hire, fire, or suspend fire fighters, it credited certain testimony as showing that Plaintiffs’ “suggestions and recommendations as to hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees were given ‘particular weight.’”  The FLSA regulations do “not require courts to ask whether an employee’s recommendations as to personnel decisions were accepted every single time—instead, it presents the question of whether those recommendations were given “particular weight,” which is precisely what the district court found.”


In light of their management exempt status, the Court decline to evaluate whether they were also exempt administrative employees and whether their standby restrictions were so onerous as to require extra compensation.


Timberline concerned a small lumber company that harvested and transported lumber only inside the state of Michigan and bought and sold only from Michigan companies.   The operations manager consulted with an accountant and believed that some the employees were exempt agricultural workers and the transportation were exempt under the Motor Carrier Exemption Act, but did not consult with an attorney or explain why the office employees would be considered exempt.   The employer kept track of working hours for the hourly employees, but not the salaried employees.  Following a DOL investigation, the DOL filed a lawsuit and was awarded summary judgment in the amount of $439,437.42 in back pay and liquidated damages for unpaid overtime owed to 50 employees.


The first issue to be considered was whether the employer was a covered enterprise under the FLSA.  The employer argued that its equipment, though manufactured outside of the state,  was purchased locally and, as the end user of that equipment, could not be considered for purposes of §203(s)(1)(A)(1) of the FLSA that covers employers which have “employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.”  The Court ultimately adopted the test utilized by the Eleventh Circuit to evaluate whether equipment used by an employer to create its product constituted goods or materials under the FLSA enterprise test.   The Eleventh Circuit considered an amendment to the FLSA to include “materials” as well as “goods” and the exception for “goods” when the employer was the ultimate enduser of the goods.  It cautioned that

the same items could be goods in one case, materials in another, and neither goods nor materials in still another case, depending on the use of the item in the context of each case.  “Where a catering business uses the china plates at a client’s banquet, the plates count as part of the ‘materials’ necessary for serving a catered meal.  But, where a department store sells the same china plates as stand-alone items, the plates count as ‘goods’ for that retailer.”  Id.  Those same plates hung as decorations on the lobby wall of an accounting firm, however, constitute neither goods nor materials “because the plates have no significant connection to the business’s accounting work.”

                 . . .

Applying the definition of “materials” from Polycarpe, the logging and harvesting equipment used by Timberline’s employees plainly constitute “materials” because the equipment is necessary to cut down trees and transport the timber, which in turn have a significant connection to Timberline’s commercial activities of harvesting and selling timber.

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that this would effectively impose the FLSA on every business which purchases computers that are all manufactured overseas and pens that are manufactured out of state because the DOL has never sought such broad enforcement.  The Court also noted that Polycarpe specifically mentioned that incidental and internal consumption of an item would not satisfy the requirement that the materials be used in the employer’s commercial activity.  “[C]overage here is not premised on employees’ incidental use of office items; rather, it is premised on employees’ regular and recurrent use of logging and harvesting equipment that is used to carry out the company’s commercial activity of harvesting timber.”


The Court next rejected the employer’s Motor Carrier exemption because its drivers never left the State of Michigan even though they held CDLs and had DOT registration numbers:

The dispositive inquiry here is not whether Timberline’s employees held commercial driver’s licenses or whether its trucks had DOT registration numbers; rather, the dispositive inquiry is whether Timberline’s drivers transport goods in interstate commerce, thus rendering Timberline a motor private carrier.  49 U.S.C. § 13102(15); Vaughn, 291 F.3d at 904.  Courts have consistently interpreted this to mean that drivers must travel or transport the goods across state lines, or transport the goods in a “‘practical continuity of movement’ across State lines from the point of origin to the point of departure.”

Further, the employer failed to show that its timber was used by its buyers in interstate commerce.   On the contrary, it disclaimed knowledge of what use was made of the timber it sold.


Third, as for calculating back pay, the DOL had argued that employees’ regular rate include the compensation that they had received for their meal and commuting time – which otherwise is not considered working hours for purposes of the FLSA – because the employer traditionally and customarily paid employees for such time and the Portal-to-Portal Act referred to including such time of customarily compensated.  Neither the DOL nor the Court had made any effort to determine how many of the employees’ paid hours constituted such commuting or meal break time.  The Court rejected that argument:

Although the plain language of the Portal-to-Portal Act suggests that home-to-work commutes are deemed compensable if the employer has a custom or practice of compensating for such work, 29 C.F.R. § 785.34 explains that “ordinary travel from home to work (see § 785.35) need not be counted as hours worked even if the employer agrees to pay for it.”  And, 29 C.F.R. § 785.35 says plainly that “[n]ormal travel from home to work is not worktime.”  The reason is that the FLSA only requires overtime compensation for “actual work or employment,” Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co., 321 U.S. at 597, “[a]nd even where there is a contract, custom, or practice to pay for time spent in such a ‘preliminary’ or ‘postliminary’ activity, section 4(d) of the Portal Act does not make such time hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if it would not be so counted under the latter Act alone,” . . . “The general rule . . . is and always has been that the FLSA does not treat ordinary home-to-job-site travel as compensable.”  Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 360 (2d Cir. 2011).  The same is true of “bona fide meal periods.”  29 C.F.R. § 785.19; see also Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, 775 F.3d 807, 811-15 (6th Cir. 2015) (examining whether meal periods were compensable under the FLSA as “work”).

The Court remanded for the DOL and trial court to calculate how many hours the employees had been paid for commuting and meal breaks and to deduct that from the damages calculation.  Nonetheless, “Defendants may not use the amounts paid for those otherwise non-compensable work periods as an offset against the amounts owed.”


Fourth, the Court also rejected the employer’s argument that liquidated damages should not be awarded or should at least be reduced because it acted in good faith in consulting with its accountant about the agricultural exemption and in paying its employees well above the industry average.  An employer is required to show that it took affirmative steps to comply with the FLSA, but nonetheless violated it.   The employer did not provide sufficient information to the accountant about all of the employees and the accountant did not profess to be a FLSA expert.  Further, the employer knew that not all of the employees would qualify under the agricultural exemption and did not take reasonable steps to investigate the status of the other workers.  It did not even convincingly argue the agricultural exemption before the trial court and did not appeal that issue to the Sixth Circuit.  As for the generous compensation, that matter is irrelevant for purposes of FLSA compliance in the absence of good faith and reasonable grounds for non-compliance.


The plaintiff in Rogers had failed to demonstrate appropriate customer service skills and had been placed on a performance improvement plan.  She alleged that she had been terminating for complaining about unpaid overtime, but she failed to show that she had made any such complaints that could be objectively perceived as a complaint.  Her first “complaint” was really an apology for being late and asking whether she could attribute the 15 minutes that she worked past her shift the prior evening towards the 25 minutes that she had been late.  Her second “complaint” related to the tone of her voice when asking if she was supposed to work on her PIP outside of regular work hours.    Her third “complaint” related to notes that she sent her manager about how she was engaging in “self-reflection” outside of work hours and that she had been told to do this on “her own time.”  Indeed, he manager contacted her about whether she was working unauthorized overtime in order to give her back time that she had worked.  The plaintiff then admitted that she had not been recording all of her time working, but did not think that would be a concern.


Even if the allegations were true, the Court found that they could not constitute “complaint” under the FLSA that could support a retaliation claim. “The Supreme Court has said that the act of filing an FLSA complaint must contain ‘some degree of formality,’ such that a reasonable employer would understand it ‘as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection.’” However, “none of them even indicated that Rogers was complaining  or used any synonym or similar expression.”  Moreover, it is not clear that the employer could have realized that she was making a complaint.

While an employee need not explicitly mention the FLSA, she must do something to give fair notice that she is actually complaining about overtime or a lack of fair compensation, i.e. the core things the FLSA protects.  Kasten, 563 U.S. at 14.  Rogers’s vague, non-adversarial conversations about staying late are not sufficiently “serious occasion[s]” to be considered complaints under the FLSA.

                 . . . .

Not every grumble or “expression[] of concern or discomfort or frustration” by an employee constitutes an FLSA complaint.  Robinson v. Wal-Mart  Stores, Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 759, 763 (W.D. Mich. 2004).  Instead, an employee’s expressions  must be “sufficiently clear and detailed” to count as a complaint.  Kasten, 563 U.S. at 14.  Rogers’s allegations provide no information on how a mere tone of voice can be that clear.  Moreover, no required inference can save her lawsuit from that lack of clarity.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.