When Congress adopted the FLSA, it designed an anti-retaliation provision to encourage employees to report suspected wage and hour violations by their employers and to prevent employees’ fear of economic retaliation when they did so.
The FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision makes it unlawful for an employer:
The courts have held that an internal complaint is a protected activity for purposes of Section 215(a)(3). Vargas v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 43020 at *4 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 6,2011); Wildi v. Alle-Kiski Medical Center, 659 F.Supp.2d 640, 664-65 (W.D. 2009); see also Chennisi v. Communs. Constr. Group, LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2274 at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2005).
The Nation’s labor laws are predicated on the belief that workers are in the best position to observe employer conduct and report violations. In off-the-clock cases where workers
are not paid for performing their job duties, workers are the only source of information about FLSA violations. If workers believe that employer retaliation is likely, they will not voice their concerns. This could seriously undermine governmental enforcement efforts and
leave employees unprotected
Moreover, as long as the internal complaint is sincere, an employer cannot retaliate. Protesting what an employee believes in good faith to be a discriminatory practice is clearly protected conduct. Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996). Thus, an employee need not prove the merits of the underlying wage complaint but only that "he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed." Id., 85 F.3d at 1085; Griffiths v. CIGNA Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir. 1993). An employee, even an educated and informed layperson should not be burdened with the sometimes impossible task of correctly anticipating how the Supreme Court or a Court of Appeals may interpret a particular statute. Berg v. LaCross Cooler Co., 612 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1980).
The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that employment and civil rights laws depend for their enforcement upon the cooperation of employees and that effective enforcement of such laws could thus only be expected when employees felt free to approach officials with their grievances. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 65-66 (2006). Thus, interpreting anti-retaliation provision to provide broad protection from retaliation helps assure the cooperation upon which accomplishment of the civil rights’ acts primary objective–preventing harm–depends. Id.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit–the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over enforcement of federal employment and discrimination laws in Pennsylvania–repeatedly has recognized that an employee seeking protection from retaliation need not plead or prove the merits of the underlying employment law or discrimination complaint to be protected from retaliation. Rather, she need only show she opposed conduct she in good faith believed to be discriminatory. Clark Co. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 269-70 (2001); Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 2006); Abramson v. William Patterson College of N.J., 260 F.3d 265, 286 (3d Cir. 2001); Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996). Likewise, opposition to either discrimination or wage law violations can take the form of "informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have complained of discrimination." Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Acad. Of Wilmington Del., 450 F.3d 130, 135 (3d Cir. 2006) Neiderlander v. American Video Glass Co., 80 Fed. Appx. 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2003).
Indeed, "only a groundless claim resting on facts no reasonable person possibly could have construed as a discrimination case could not constitute a statutorily protected activity." A mistake as to the merits of a complaint does not cost an employee the protection of the anti-retaliation provisions. Patsakis v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, et. al., 428 F. Supp.2d 378, 382 (W.D.Pa. 2006)(Hardiman, J),
As the Third Circuit held in Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 2006) an employee is not required to collect enough evidence of discrimination to put a discrimination case before a jury before he complains.
These cases often turn on whether the employee made the employer reasonably aware that he or she was complaining of a wage law violation or of discrimination. If you believe your employer is engaging in discriminatory practice, or cheating you out of overtime and you complain to your employer, make sure you are clear about your complaint. But under the law, you cannot be retaliated against for complaining.