Minor v. Bostwick Laboratories, Inc.
669 F.3d 428
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Minor, a medical technologist, was employed by Bostwick Laboratories from Dec 24, 2007, to May 12, 2008; final performance was satisfactory on Apr 30, 2008.
- On May 6, 2008, Minor and others told COO Bill Miller that supervisor Dawn Webber allegedly altered time sheets to evade overtime pay.
- Minor was terminated on May 12, 2008 for alleged conflict with supervisors, with coworkers supposedly deeming her the problem.
- Minor alleged no prior discipline and denied the coworkers meeting purported by management.
- On June 1, 2009, Minor filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging retaliation under FLSA § 215(a)(3) for an intracompany complaint about FLSA violations.
- The district court dismissed the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as unprotected intracompany complaints; the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intracompany complaints are protected activity under § 215(a)(3). | Minor argues intracompany complaints qualify. | Bostwick argues only formal proceedings trigger protection. | Ambiguous; remedial purpose supports intracompany protection. |
| Does Kasten control whether intracompany complaints are protected? | Kasten requires broad protection including intracompany. | Kasten focused on oral complaints and did not settle intracompany scope. | Not directly controlling; persuasive reasoning supports protection. |
| What interpretive approach should apply given ambiguity? | Remedial purpose requires protecting intracompany complaints. | Plain-language limits protection. | Remedial purpose governs; intracompany complaints may be protected. |
| Are the district court's fair-notice standards required for intracompany complaints? | Complaint to COO was clear and targeted. | Informal complaints lack notice. | Kasten notice standard met; complaint survives dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (Supreme Court, 2011) (held oral complaints can be protected; addressed notice standard and ambiguity of 'filed any complaint')
- Ball v. Memphis Bar-B-Q Co., 228 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2000) (distinguished; addressed 'testimony' clause and formal proceedings)
- Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 529 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2008) (adopts majority view that intracompany complaints may be protected)
- Valerio v. Putnam Assocs., Inc., 173 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 1999) (recognizes remedial purposes support intracompany protection)
- EEOC v. White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006 (11th Cir. 1989) (holds intracompany complaints can be protected)