How Long Is "Too Short?"

10 December 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Employers know retaliation cases continue to rise, and many appropriately fear being the subject of one. Employers also know that it is difficult, if not impossible, to know exactly when retaliation will occur. So what to do? On November 30, 2012, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in which it attempted to further clarify parameters of retaliation. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, the employee argued that the location of the time clock was illegal because it forced employees to inaccurately record the time they spent going to their work station or donning or doffing (putting on and taking off) required clothing. The employee was continually counseled and disciplined for failing to accurately clock in. On the fourth occasion, where he was about to be disciplined, a supervisor told the employee to “just lay down and tell them what they want to hear, [they] can probably save your job.” The employee claimed to have complained of the location of the time clocks at a meeting regarding his suspension and again via email and phone call to a supervisor. Two days later, the employee was terminated from employment. That same day, the time clocks were moved closer to the donning and doffing area.

The court reversed an order in favor of the employer. Relevant to all employers, the court identified three factors giving rise to a suspicion of retaliation: suspicious timing, ambiguous statements and behavior, and evidence of pretextual reasoning for an employee’s discharge. More specifically, the court determined a jury question existed as to whether retaliation occurred based on four facts: only two days elapsed between the employee’s complaint and his discharge; the fact that the employee was disciplined for every punch clock violation after he complained (as opposed to the sporadic discipline he received prior to complaining); the ambiguous statement made by a supervisor about “laying down and telling them what they want to hear” was a potential job threat; and the fact that the time clocks were moved the day the employee was discharged. Finally, in reversing, the court also found that inconsistent explanation for taking an adverse employment action suggested pretext and that oral complaints put an employer on “fair notice” of a potential violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

What does this case mean for employers?

1. The timing of complaints is key.
2. Be clear and consistent as to the reason for employee discipline.
3. Be careful in tying employee discipline with a change in employer practices.
4. Pay attention to oral complaints of unpaid wages.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

New York Expands Pay Equity Law
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
The Face of DOL is New, the Name is Not; Trump Picks Scalia for Secretary of Labor
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ