 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bauer v. Pottsville Area Emergency Medical Services8/25/2000
d him about his employer's overtime violations. The compliance officer then spoke with the employer about the claims and, based upon the mistaken belief that his employee filed the complaint, the employer fired him. When his employee filed an FLSA action, the employer claimed the employee, in fact, did not file the complaint with the Division and, thus, there can be no violation of the FLSA. The court found, however, the discharge of an employee under the mistaken impression that he participated in protected activity is enough to violate the FLSA.
In Best v. Janerich, 80 F. Supp. 2d 334 (M.D. Pa. 1999), aff'd, 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. Pa. 2000), the employee filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and instituted an FLSA action after she was terminated by her employer. The court found that the employee was discharged before her employer became aware of her claims of discrimination and, thus, she had no viable claim for retaliation under the FLSA. Similarly, the court in Sandt v. Holden, 698 F. Supp. 64 (M.D. Pa. 1988), found the employee was not discharged in violation of the FLSA because her termination occurred well before the filing of an FLSA action. The employee, who performed domestic and nursing services for a 99 year- old woman, sent a letter regarding overtime pay to her employer's attorney. The employee was discharged and, thereafter, filed an FLSA action. The court concluded the employee "failed to demonstrate that the immediate motivating factor for her discharge was her assertion of her rights under the FLSA." Id. at 69.
In Nairne v. Manzo, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2723 (E.D. Pa. 1987), the employee contacted the Wage and Hour Division about overtime pay and posted the information she received in her employer's office. Her employer became hostile towards her and, thereafter, the employer terminated her employment as an ophthalmological technician. The court reviewed the circumstances occurring after the employee's posting and found she committed no act subsequent to the posting which, in itself, would warrant dismissal. The employer, therefore, violated the retaliatory provision of the FLSA.
In light of our federal case law, the factual averments in appellant's complaint do not raise an issue concerning whether appellant engaged in conduct protected by the FLSA. Prior to the reduction of his work hours, appellant never complained that appellee was violating the FLSA, or instituted any type of FLSA proceeding. At most, appellant contacted appellee regarding his status as a full-time employee according to the terms of the employee handbook, which clearly does not implicate the FLSA. Appellant based his complaint upon the creation of an implied contract and, thus, failed to establish that he engaged in protected activity under the FLSA. Accordingly, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion by finding the factual averments, set forth in appellant's complaint, do not support a retaliatory discharge cause of action under the FLSA.
The Order of the trial court, insofar as it dismisses appellant's breach of contract action, is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. In all other respects, the Order is affirmed.
Order affirmed in part, vacated in part, and case remanded.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Cavanaugh, J.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY CAVANAUGH, J.:
It is firmly established that Pennsylvania is an at-will employment jurisdiction. McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283 (Pa. 2000). This doctrine is an offspr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|