18.01.2015 Views

LITIGATIONRESULTS - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC

LITIGATIONRESULTS - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC

LITIGATIONRESULTS - Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

WHD Wins Summary Judgment<br />

for its Client – Twice!<br />

mcintyre<br />

godar<br />

In December 2006, WHD client Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.<br />

(Saint-Gobain) terminated an employee, Kevin Kasten, under the company’s<br />

progressive discipline policy for time clock violations. Nearly a year later,<br />

Mr. Kasten filed a retaliation complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act<br />

(FLSA), asserting he was fired for his complaints about alleged underpayment<br />

of wages due to time clock locations. The district court dismissed Kasten’s<br />

complaint on Saint-Gobain’s motion for summary judgment, holding an<br />

employee’s oral complaint was not protected conduct under the FLSA.<br />

Mr. Kasten appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed<br />

Judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA was<br />

not triggered by the oral complaint of an employee and that the FLSA required<br />

a written complaint. Mr. Kasten petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court and asked<br />

the court to consider the issue of whether a wage-related oral complaint by an<br />

employee is sufficient to trigger the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA. The<br />

U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-2 vote, reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that<br />

a reasonably clear oral complaint is sufficient to give an employer notice of a<br />

wage-related grievance and trigger the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA.<br />

The case was then remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Western District<br />

of Wisconsin. WHD again filed a motion for summary judgment on a new<br />

issue created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, and re-asserted the “no<br />

retaliation as a matter of law” argument since Mr. Kasten was terminated for<br />

policy violations, not his alleged wage-related complaints. Judge Crabb granted<br />

WHD’s second motion for summary judgment and held that the plaintiff failed to<br />

make a prima facie case of retaliation and dismissed the case.<br />

The victory nullified the risk of a potential $1 million verdict at trial, much of<br />

which would have been the plaintiff’s attorney fees had WHD lost on liability.<br />

Litigation Type: Employment litigation<br />

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (remanded<br />

by U.S. Supreme Court)<br />

Lead WHD Counsel: Jeffrey McIntyre and Thomas Godar<br />

Principal WHD Team Members: Jeffrey McIntyre, Thomas Godar,<br />

Barbara Zabawa, Erin Keesecker, Cindi Wittlinger (paralegal – litigation<br />

support specialist), Cheryl Louis (paralegal)<br />

Practice Area Involved: Labor & Employment, Litigation<br />

LITIGATION RESULTS 21

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!