Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–834.,09–834.
• Citation: 563 U.S. 1,131 S.Ct. 1325,179 L.Ed.2d 379
• Parties: Kevin KASTEN, Petitioner, v. SAINT–GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

563 U.S. 1

131 S.Ct. 1325

179 L.Ed.2d 379

Kevin KASTEN, Petitioner,

v.SAINT–GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION.

No. 09–834.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 13, 2010.

Decided March 22, 2011.

James H. Kaster, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey B. Wall, for United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Petitioner.

Carter G. Phillips, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

James H. Kaster, Adrianna Haugen Shannon, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Eric Schnapper, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey A. McIntyre, Thomas P. Godar, Barbara J. Zabawa, Whyte, Hirschboeck, Dudek S.C., Madison, WI, Carter G. Phillips, Eric D. McArthur, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the 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).

We must decide whether the statutory term "filed any complaint" includes oral as well as written complaints within its scope. We conclude that it does.

I

The petitioner, Kevin Kasten, brought this antiretaliation lawsuit against his former employer, Saint–Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation. 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 (W.D.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.

In particular, Kasten says that he repeatedly called the unlawful timeclock location to Saint–Gobain's attention—in accordance with Saint–Gobain's internal grievance-resolution procedure. See Brief for Petitioner 4 (quoting Saint–Gobain's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct as imposing upon every employee "the responsibility to report ... suspected violations of ... any applicable law of which he or she becomes aware"); id., at 4–5 (quoting Saint–Gobain's Employee Policy Handbook as instructing employees with "questions, complaints, and problems" to "[c]ontact" their "supervisor[s] immediately" and if necessary "take the issue to the next level of management," then to the "local Human Resources Manager," then to "Human Resources" personnel at the "Regional" or "Headquarters" level).

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. Record in No. 3:07–cv–00686–bbc (WD Wis.), Doc. 87–3, pp. 31–34 (deposition of Kevin Kasten). This activity, Kasten concludes, led the company to discipline him and, in December 2006, to dismiss him.

Saint–Gobain presents a different version of events. It denies that Kasten made any significant complaint about the timeclock location. And it says that it dismissed Kasten simply because Kasten, after being repeatedly warned, failed to record his comings and goings on the timeclock.

For present purposes we accept Kasten's version of these contested events as valid. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). That is because the District Court entered summary judgment in Saint–Gobain's favor. 619 F.Supp.2d 608, 610 (W.D.Wis.2008). And it did so, not because it doubted Kasten's ability to prove the facts he alleged, but because it thought the Act did not protect oral complaints. Id., at 611–613. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Act's antiretaliation provision does not cover oral complaints. 570 F.3d 834, 838–840 (2009).

Kasten sought certiorari. And in light of conflict among the Circuits as to whether an oral complaint is protected, we granted Kasten's petition. Compare Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, L.L. C., 529 F.3d 617, 625–626 (C.A.5 2008) (antiretaliation provision covers oral complaints); Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1007 (C.A.9 1999) (en banc) (same); with Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46, 55–56 (C.A.2 1993) (antiretaliation provision does not cover informal complaints to supervisors). See also Pacheco v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 365 F.3d 1199, 1206 (C.A.10 2004) (antiretaliation provision covers unofficial assertion of rights); EEOC v. White & Son Enterprises, 881 F.2d 1006, 1011–1012 (C.A.11 1989) (same); Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558, 562–563 (C.A.6 2004) (assuming without discussion that oral complaints are covered); Brennan v. Maxey's Yamaha, Inc.,

513 F.2d 179, 181 (C.A.8 1975) (same).

II

The sole question presented is whether "an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act" is "protected conduct under the [Act's] anti-retaliation provision." Pet. for Cert. i. The Act protects employees who have "filed any complaint," 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), and interpretation of this phrase "depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and context of the statute, and consulting any precedents or authorities that inform the analysis," Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 486, 126 S.Ct. 1252, 163 L.Ed.2d 1079 (2006). This analysis leads us to conclude that the language of the provision, considered in isolation, may be open to competing interpretations. But considering the provision in conjunction with the purpose and context leads us to conclude that only one interpretation is permissible.

A

We begin with the text of the statute. The word "filed" has different relevant meanings in different contexts. Some dictionary definitions of the word contemplate a writing. See, e.g., Webster's New International Dictionary 945 (2d ed.1934) (def.4(a)) (to file is to "deliver (a paper or instrument) to the proper officer so that it is received by him to be kept on file, or among the records of his office" (emphasis added)); Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 462 (1983) (def.2(a)) (one definition of "file" is "to place among official records as prescribed by law").

But other dictionaries provide different definitions that permit the use of the word "file" in conjunction with oral material. One can, for example, file an oral statement that enters a matter "into the order of business." 1 Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language 920 (rev. ed.1938) (def.2) (to file is to "present in the regular way, as to a judicial or legislative body, so that it shall go upon the records or into the order of business"). This possibility is significant because it means that dictionary meanings, even if considered alone, do not necessarily limit the scope of the statutory phrase to written complaints. Cf. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 555 U.S. 271, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 846, 851, 172 L.Ed.2d 650 (2009) (looking for the "limits" of a linguistic phrase rather than what "exemplif[ies]" its application).

In addition to the dictionary definitions, we have found that legislators, administrators, and judges have all sometimes used the word "file" in conjunction with oral statements. Thus state statutes sometimes contemplate oral filings. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 47.32.090(a) (2008) ("file a verbal or written complaint"); Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 17055(a) (West 2006) ("file an administrative complaint orally or in writing"); D.C.Code § 7–1231.12(a)(2)(B) (2001) ("filing his or her grievance, orally or in writing"); Ga.Code Ann. §§ 31–8–124(a), (c), 31–8–134(b) (2009) ("to file a grievance," a person may "submit an oral or written complaint"); Ind.Code § 27–8–28–14(a) (2009) ("file a grievance orally or in writing"); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann., Tit. 34–B, § 5604(3)(B) (2009) ("filed through an oral request"); Miss.Code Ann. § 69–47–23(4) (2005) ("file a written or oral complaint"); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 198.088.3(3) (2009) (to have a complaint "filed," a person "shall write or cause to be written his grievance or shall state it orally"); Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 618.336(2)(a), 618.341(1)(a) (2009) ("oral or written complaint filed"); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C–12 (West 2008) ("written or oral complaint may be filed"); N.Y. Ins. Law Ann. §§ 3217–a(a)(7), 4324(a)(7) (West 2006) ("file a grievance orally"); N.Y. Pub. Health Law Ann. §§ 4408(1)(g) (West Supp.2010) ("file a grievance orally"); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 40, §§ 991.2141(a) - (b) (Purdon 1999) ("file a ... written or oral complaint"); Tex. Ins.Code Ann. §§ 1305.401(a) - (b) (West 2009) ("oral or written complaint" must be "file [d]"); Wash. Rev.Code §§ 90.64.030(3), (5) (2008) ("complaints have been filed ... as the result of either an oral or a written complaint").

...