Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enters., No. 13-15292 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a managerial employee, filed suit alleging that GlobalTranz and its executives fired her for engaging in protected activity. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Supreme Court established a “fair notice” test for deciding whether an employee has “filed any complaint” under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). Plaintiff alleged that defendants retaliated against her for complaining about defendants' failure to comply with the FLSA. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court held that a complaining employee’s position as a manager is an important part of the “context” that the fact-finder must consider. A reasonable employer would understand many actions taken by a non-managerial employee differently than it would understand the same actions taken by a manager. However, the court declined to formulate or adopt a special bright-line rule to apply when considering whether a manager has “filed any complaint” within the meaning of section 215(a)(3). In this case, applying Kasten’s “fair notice” rule, the court held that a jury reasonably could find that plaintiff filed such a complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the employer on an employee’s claim under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Applying the “fair notice” test for deciding whether the employee had “filed any complaint,” the panel considered whether, pursuant to Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011), the complaint was “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.” The panel held that a complaining employee’s position is an important part of the “context” that the fact- finder must consider, but the panel declined to formulate or adopt a special bright-line rule to apply when considering whether a manager has “filed any complaint” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). The panel held that a jury reasonably could find that the employee filed a complaint. It therefore reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. ROSENFIELD V. GLOBALTRANZ ENTERS. 3 Dissenting, Judge Benson wrote that the FLSA requires a manager to step outside of his or her role as a manager in order to file a complaint. He would affirm on the ground that all of the employee’s actions fell within the ambit of her managerial duties, and she did not take a position adverse to that of her employer.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.