Skip to main content

Prospective Employees Cannot Bring FLSA Retaliation Claims Against Prospective Employers


Lipscomb v. Boyce - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Blake Lipscomb (“Lipscomb”) worked as a canine officer at the Lawrence County Sheriff’s Office.  After being terminated, Lipscomb hired an attorney and began to negotiate with the county for overtime pay.  Around this time, a local newspaper incorrectly reported that Lipscomb had filed a lawsuit over the matter.  At the time, Lipscomb learned of a canine officer opening with the Drug Task Force (“DTF”).  A state prosecutor, Henry Boyce (“Boyce”), apparently had final authority to hire for the position, according to Lipscomb.  Lipscomb claimed that Boyce refused to hire him because Boyce did not want to hire anyone who had a lawsuit pending against the county.  (Again, there was apparently no lawsuit filed.)  Lipscomb claimed that Boyce told him that the lawsuit was holding Boyce back from hiring him for the DTF position.

Lipscomb subsequently filed suit against Boyce on the grounds that Boyce violated the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and violated Lipscomb’s First Amendment rights.  In regard to the FLSA portion of Lipscomb’s claim, the district court dismissed it on the grounds that the FLSA did not provide protections to prospective employees.  Lipscomb appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief only analyzes the FLSA portion of Lipscomb’s appeal.)

Recognizing that the applicability of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision as to prospective employees had not previously been considered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court pointed out that a similar case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the statutory text of the FLSA provided guidance on the issue.  Parsing the language of the FLSA, the Court noted that “employee” was defined as “any individual employed by an employer.”  Under the language of the FLSA, there was no exception to that definition, for instance in the situation of a prospective employee.  Consequently, since Lipscomb was only a prospective employee for the DTF position, the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA was inapplicable to his claims against Boyce.

Judgment:  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the prospective employee’s claim that a prospective employer violated the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA on the grounds that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision did not apply to prospective employees.

The Takeaway:  This was a case worth highlighting for two reasons:  1) the Eighth Circuit’s recognition that this was the first time it was deciding on the issue and 2) as a reminder to readers that statutory text is paramount.  Had Lipscomb been an actual employee, at a minimum he could have likely survived the motion to dismiss filed by Boyce.  Whether he would have prevailed on the merits of this claim is anyone’s guess, however.

Putting that aside, even if the local newspaper’s story was true that Lipscomb had filed a lawsuit against the county, it appears that would not have altered the Court’s ruling.  Quite simply, as Lipscomb was not an “employee” under the definition provided in the FLSA, he had no grounds to make a claim that a prospective employer retaliated against him in violation of the FLSA.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Chief Judge Smith

Date:  April 3, 2020


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more