Last week, the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a FLSA retaliation claim. Caudill v. Hard Drive Express, Inc., No. 23-1145 (6th Cir. 2/7/24). The employee trucker had complained repeatedly during his employment that the employer failed to pay him for minor repairs that he made on his truck or for time driving it to an authorized repair shop. On his last day of work, they argued over that and whether he was eligible for PTO before he was fired. The Court found that there was a dispute over material facts which a jury must resolve about the reason he was fired when he had threatened to go to “the labor board” after the employer referred to uncompensated repairs that the employee had made. While the employer had argued and the trial court had found that this threat related to unprotected complaints about the PTO policy, the Court found that the employee’s numerous prior complaints about the uncompensated time and repair issue could also have been sufficient to put the employer on notice that he was engaging in conduct protected under the FLSA.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff trucker had
repeatedly complained about not being paid for time spent making and obtaining
repairs on his truck. The employer explained that he had failed to turn in
receipts for reimbursement and was supposed to have had all repairs made by
authorized vendors. (The plaintiff asserted
that he had turned in the original receipts without keeping copies). On his
last day of work, they argued again -- mostly by text message -- about this and
his ineligibility for PTO before he was fired. During the text message argument,
he threatened to report the employer to the “labor board” after his boss had pointed out that he had
made him many no-interest loans and was offended that he wanted paid for
changing filters which he should have been done only by the authorized repair shops. They also argued about whether he qualified
for paid time off when he failed to give 30 days advance notice, etc. The trial court granted summary judgment to
the employer on the grounds that the employee’s complaints about getting paid
for repairs were too vague to have put the employer on notice that they were
protected by the FLSA and that his complaints about PTO were unprotected by the
FLSA.
The Court did not dispute that his complaints about PTO were
unprotected by the FLSA. However, it did
not find the trucker’s threat to be too vague to prove that he was
terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct under the FLSA,
which “contains an antiretaliation provision that makes it unlawful “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 this chapter.” Id. § 215(a)(3).” The Court essentially follows the same
burdens of proof that exist under the federal discrimination laws.
While the trial court’s interpretation of the text message
exchange between the plaintiff and employer was plausible, it was not the only
possible interpretation.
Given the muddled nature of the back-and-forth between the two, the message could support either reading. Additionally, [the plaintiff’s] statement that he was on his way to the labor board came in response to a message from [his boss] complaining that he was asked to reimburse truck maintenance even though he made no-interest loans to drivers . . . .
Because a reasonable jury could find that these messages put Defendants on notice that [plaintiff] intended to report them for their asserted failure to compensate drivers for repairs, summary judgment should not have been granted.
Moreover, his
“prior complaints about reimbursements provide another potential grounding for his FLSA claim. The district court held that the prior complaints did constitute protected activity under the FLSA, as it covers informal and internal complaints. . . . It concluded, however, that these complaints did “not appear to be more than mere grumblings” that failed to satisfy the notice requirement. . . . In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished [his] earlier complaints from a case in which the plaintiff’s “numerous internal complaints” included one that cited FLSA penalties; it also noted that [he] failed to produce records of unreimbursed expenses. . . . But as Defendants themselves admitted in their summary judgment motion, “Plaintiff repeatedly complained (commencing in 2017) and threatened to report the company . . . about alleged unpaid services or non-reimbursed, out-of-pocket expenses.” . . . The district court did not explain why, given those threats, the complaints were too indefinite to place Defendants on notice that [he] was asserting statutory rights. . . . . And to the extent that [he] must establish that [his employer] in fact failed to reimburse him, he submitted an affidavit stating that he turned in receipts to [his boss] and was not reimbursed. This is competent evidence to overcome summary judgment, even if the lack of corroborating documentation (and conflicting attestations from Defendants) might affect how a jury weighs it.
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 change or be 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.
