Russell v. Kloeckner Metals Corporation, 3:13-cv-00316

Background

Plaintiff Lorenzo Russell worked as a non-exempt machine operator at Kloeckner Metals’ Murfreesboro plant and alleges FLSA-protected complaints about unpaid time.
On Sept. 11, 2012, employees were called to a lunch-hour meeting; Russell contacted HR the same day complaining he and other hourly workers would not be paid for attending.
After his complaint, a longstanding informal practice letting employees dump landscaping debris on company property was abruptly prohibited; Russell contends this was retaliatory.
Russell spoke about the unpaid meeting with plant manager Michael Drake and regional president Joey Johnson; Johnson allegedly told him, “If you are so unhappy, why don’t you leave?”
On Oct. 31, 2012, Russell was laid off/terminated; he alleges the firing was in retaliation for his FLSA complaints. Defendant moved for summary judgment.
The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether Russell engaged in protected activity, causation for the termination, and pretext.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russell engaged in protected activity under the FLSA	Russell complained about unpaid time for the lunch meeting (to HR, Drake, and Johnson) and about retaliatory anti-dumping enforcement	Defendant says Russell only asked questions/inquired about pay and Tennessee law and did not give fair notice of an FLSA grievance	Genuine dispute of material fact; jury must decide whether his statements amounted to protected complaints
Whether enforcement of the anti-dumping policy was an adverse employment action	Russell asserts the policy change was retaliatory and part of mistreatment after his complaints	Kloeckner contends mere enforcement of the policy was not an adverse employment action	Court: enforcement was not an adverse employment action by itself, but it can be relevant to show a pattern of retaliation
Whether termination was an adverse action causally connected to protected activity	Russell points to temporal proximity, the dumping-policy change, and Johnson’s comment as evidence of retaliatory motive	Kloeckner says Russell was laid off in a legitimate reduction in force and his position was eliminated	Genuine issue of material fact exists as to causation; jury must decide whether termination was retaliatory
Whether the employer’s stated reason for termination was pretextual	Russell argues the RIF explanation is pretext given his unique termination among production employees and timing after complaints	Kloeckner offers legitimate, non-retaliatory reason (position eliminated)	Court: disputed facts about motive and credibility preclude summary judgment on pretext; issue for jury

Key Cases Cited

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S.Ct. 1325 (2011) (defines when an employee’s complaint gives fair notice of FLSA rights)
Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements and burden-shifting framework for FLSA retaliation claims)
Dye v. Office of the Racing Commission, 702 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity and other evidence may establish causation in retaliation cases)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 509 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2007) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2003) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
Pennington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard)