History
  • No items yet
midpage
Greathouse v. JHS Security Inc.
784 F.3d 105
2d Cir.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Darnell Greathouse worked for JHS Security and orally complained to company president Wilcox on Oct. 14, 2011 that he had not been paid; Wilcox allegedly pointed a gun at him and effectively terminated him.
  • Greathouse sued under the FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)) and New York Labor Law for unpaid wages and retaliatory discharge; defendants defaulted and the clerk entered defaults.
  • A magistrate judge recommended damages on wage claims but denied damages on the FLSA retaliation claim, relying on Second Circuit precedent Lambert v. Genesee Hosp. requiring complaints be filed with a government agency.
  • The District Court adopted the report; Greathouse appealed, arguing Kasten v. Saint‑Gobain undermines Lambert and that intra‑company oral complaints are protected.
  • The Second Circuit panel reconsidered Lambert in light of Kasten, the statute’s remedial purpose, and agency (EEOC/Secretary of Labor) positions; it vacated the portion of the judgment relying on Lambert and remanded for the district court to reconsider default‑judgment damages consistent with the opinion.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument (appointed amicus) Held
Whether §215(a)(3) protects oral complaints to an employer (not an agency) Greathouse: Kasten allows oral complaints to be protected and §215(a)(3) should include intra‑company complaints if sufficiently clear Defendants: Lambert remains good law — §215(a)(3) requires filing with a government agency; intra‑company complaints are not "filed" under the statute Court: Overrules Lambert to the extent it required agency filing; §215(a)(3) protects oral complaints to employers if they are "sufficiently clear and detailed" for a reasonable employer to understand them as asserting FLSA rights (Kasten standard)
Whether the word "filed any complaint" unambiguously means only agency filings Greathouse: ambiguous; context, remedial purpose, and agency interpretations support a broad reading Defendants: statutory context and other uses of "filed" in FLSA suggest a governmental filing requirement Held: Phrase is ambiguous; textual context, statutory purpose, and agency precedent support including intra‑company complaints
Weight to give EEOC/Secretary of Labor interpretations Greathouse: agencies consistently interpret §215(a)(3) to cover internal complaints; their views merit deference/weight Defendants: agency interpretations cannot override statutory text Held: The agencies’ long, consistent positions merit Skidmore weight and support a broad reading consistent with Kasten
Effect of default judgment posture on relief Greathouse (and concurring judge): default established liability and district court should award damages on retaliation and overlapping NYLL claims Majority/appointed amicus: procedural defenses preserved; remand required for district court to apply new rule to default judgment Held: Majority remands for district court to determine in first instance whether default judgment on retaliation claim should be granted and what damages are appropriate; concurrence would have entered judgment on damages now

Key Cases Cited

  • Kasten v. Saint‑Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011) (held oral complaints can satisfy "filed any complaint" if sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand they assert statutory rights)
  • Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1993) (prior Second Circuit rule limiting §215(a)(3) protection to formal/agency filings; overruled in part)
  • Valerio v. Putnam Assocs. Inc., 173 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 1999) (internal complaints may be "filed" with employer and §215(a)(3) should be read broadly)
  • Minor v. Bostwick Labs., Inc., 669 F.3d 428 (4th Cir. 2012) (found "filed any complaint" ambiguous and adopted broad reading protecting intracompany complaints)
  • Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1971) (default judgment effect discussion cited by concurrence regarding admissions by default)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Greathouse v. JHS Security Inc.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date Published: Apr 20, 2015
Citation: 784 F.3d 105
Docket Number: Docket No. 12-4521-cv
Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.