The Fourth Circuit, in a divided opinion, holds the retaliation protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply only to current and former employees of an employer, not prospective employees. In
Dellinger v. Science Applications International the majority finds this result compelled by the statutory language. Relying on
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) which held a former employee can state a retaliation claim under Title VII for conduct occurring after termination of the employment relationship, the dissent argues the Plaintiff states a claim. Money quote after the jump.
The majority thus ignores Robinson and resorts to its unsanctioned "original intent" methodology, presumably because it cannot adequately square the result it reaches with the Act’s substantive context, that is, the literal words of § 216(b) affording victims of retaliation the alternative reme- dies of "reinstatement" and "employment." Obviously, only former employees can be reinstated, leaving the remedy of employment to those who cannot be reinstated, i.e., those, like Dellinger, who have yet to be employed.
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
Posts
