## Facts

- Kevin Kasten worked as an hourly employee at Saint-Gobain’s manufacturing plant in Wisconsin.
- Saint-Gobain located time clocks between the locker room and the work area, preventing workers from recording time spent donning and doffing required protective gear.
- In related litigation, a federal court determined Saint-Gobain’s failure to compensate for certain donning and doffing time violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- Kasten claimed he repeatedly made oral complaints to plant officials that the time-clock placement and resulting pay practice were illegal and could lead to a lawsuit.
- Kasten asserted he complained through Saint-Gobain’s internal grievance channels.
- Saint-Gobain disputed that Kasten made a meaningful FLSA complaint and contended he was terminated for repeated timekeeping violations after warnings and suspensions.
- Saint-Gobain terminated Kasten on December 11, 2006.
- Kasten sued under FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), alleging he was discharged because of his oral complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether “filed any complaint” in 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) covers oral complaints, or only written complaints.
2. If oral complaints are covered, what level of clarity is required for the complaint to qualify as protected activity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit (6–2) and remanded.
- The Court held that “filed any complaint” includes oral as well as written complaints.
- The Court required that an oral complaint must provide fair notice: it must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand, in context, that the employee is asserting FLSA-protected rights and seeking their protection.
- The Court declined to decide whether the statute protects only complaints to a government body or also purely internal complaints to an employer.
- The Court rejected applying the rule of lenity because, after considering text, purpose, and interpretive guidance, the statute was not so ambiguous as to require a narrow construction.

## Legal Principles

- FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), protects employees who “file[] any complaint,” including oral complaints.
- Protected complaints must be sufficiently clear and detailed to give a reasonable employer fair notice that the employee is asserting rights under the FLSA and calling for their protection.
- Statutory purpose and enforcement design (employee-initiated reporting) support reading § 215(a)(3) to protect informal complaints, not only formal written submissions.
- The rule of lenity does not apply where interpretive tools yield a workable meaning and the statute is not left in equipoise.

## Conclusion

The Court held that FLSA retaliation protection is not limited to written submissions: oral complaints may qualify as “filed” if they are clear enough, in context, to alert a reasonable employer that the employee is asserting FLSA rights, and the case was remanded for further proceedings under that standard.


Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011)