Imagine a legal action against an employer that hinges on the meaning of a single, five-letter word... filed. As in the words "[an employee] has filed any complaint" contained in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (the Act). For that matter, what is the meaning of any in that phrase?

The challenge of defining filed and any went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently issued its 15-page opinion defining the words.

The court ruled for Kevin Kasten, who argued that his former employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, had illegally retaliated against him when the company terminated him because he had filed a complaint orally about the company time clocks. The employer's defense was that the Act's anti-retaliation provision kicked in for the employee only when the employee filed a written complaint.

What happened that triggered the case. Employee Kasten brought the anti-retaliation lawsuit against his former employer, Saint-Gobain. Saint-Cobain located the time clocks between the area where Kasten and other employees put on (and took off) their work-related protective gear and the area where they carried out their assigned tasks. That location prevented the employees from receiving credit for the time they spent putting on and taking off their work clothes – contrary to the Act's requirements.

Kasten claimed he repeatedly called the unlawful time clock location to the employer's attention, in accordance with the company's internal grievance-resolution procedure. The company's employee handbook instructed employees with "questions, complaints, and problems" to "[c]ontact" their "supervisor[s] immediately" and if necessary "take the issue to the next level of management," then to the "local Human Resources Manager," then to "Human Resources" personnel at the "Regional" or "Headquarters" level.

Kasten claimed he "raised a concern" with his shift supervisor that "it was illegal for the time clocks to be where they were" because Saint-Gobain's exclusion of "the time you come in and start doing stuff." Further, he told a human resources employee that "if they were to get challenged on" the location in court, "they would lose." He told his lead operator that the location was illegal and that he "was thinking about starting a lawsuit about the placement of the time clocks." And he told the human resources manager and the operations manager that he thought the location was illegal and that the company would "lose" in court.

Kasten asserted he was then terminated by the company, in retaliation for making the complaints.

The court accepted Kasten's version of the events as valid.

The sole question presented to the court was whether "an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act" is "protected conduct under the [Act's] anti-retaliation provision." The Act protects employees who have "filed any complaint." Saint-Gobain argued that "filed" means a written complaint, not an oral complaint.

The court identified at least nine reasons for deciding that the words filed and any include an oral complaint for purposes of protection under the Act:

1. "A narrow interpretation would undermine the Act's basic objective, which is to prohibit 'labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers... '"

2. Congress would not have wanted "to limit the enforcement scheme's effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act's complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly the illiterate, less educated, or overworked workers who were most in need of the Act's help at the time of passage [in 1938]... "

3. "Limiting the provision's scope to written complaints could prevent Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other oral methods to receive complaints."

4. "... a limiting reading would discourage using informal workplace grievance procedures to secure compliance with the Act."

5. "The Secretary of Labor has consistently held the view that 'filed any complaint' covers both oral and written complaints."

6. "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set out a similar view in its Compliance Manual and in multiple briefs."

7. "In addition to the dictionary definitions, we have found that legislators, administrators, and judges have all sometimes used the world 'file' in conjunction with oral statements."

8. "Regulations promulgated by various federal agencies sometimes permit complaints to be filed orally."

9. "... the phrase 'any complaint' suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint."

A qualification from the court: In its decision, the court explained that an oral complaint, as meant under the Act, can't be just any, casual spoken complaint. For the employee's complaint to be relevant under the Act, the oral complaint must be given in a manner that gives the employer "fair notice." 

The court explained in these words: "... the phrase 'filed any complaint' contemplates some degree of formality, certainly to the point where the recipient has been given fair notice that a grievance has been lodged and does, or should, reasonably understand the matter as part of its business concerns... But we also believe that a fair notice requirement does not necessarily mean that notice must be in writing."

The court then stated: "To fall within the scope of the antiretaliation provision, a complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection. This standard can be met, however, by oral complaints, as well as by written ones."

[NOTE: Information and guidance in this story is intended to provide accurate and helpful information on the subjects covered. It is not intended to provide a legal service for readers' individual needs. For legal guidance in your specific situations, always consult with an attorney who is familiar with employment law and labor issues.]