Ofthe Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.  

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2820 K EV I N K AST EN, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. S AI NT -G OBA I N P ERFORMANCE P LASTIC S C ORPO RA T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- C- 0686

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Judge.
A RGUED A PRI L 2, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 29, 2009

Befo re B AUERa nd F LA UM, C ircu it Judges , a nd K AP A LA, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . P lain tiff K e v in K as te n ap p ea ls th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s g r an t o f su m m ar y j udg m en t to de fendant Sa i nt- Gobai n Per f or m ance Pl ast i cs Cor pora ti on (“Saint-G obain” ). K asten clai m s t ha t the district cou rt2 N o. 08

- 2820

er re d in i ts i nter preta ti on o fthe Fai r LaborS tandards Act w hen i tde t e r mi ne d tha tKa s t e n ha d n o ts uffe r e d r e t al i ati o n wi th i n th e m ea ni ngo fthe s ta tu te
. F o r the r ea so ns ex pl aine d b el o w, we affi r m the j udg m ento fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I . B a c kg r o und Defe nd ant S ai nt-G obain i s a co rpor ati on that m anufa cture s a var i etyo fhi gh- perf or m ance m ate ri al s a t f aci l i ti es thro ughou t the c ountr y. Pl ai nti ffKevi n K ast en worke d i n Sa i nt- Gobai n’s P ortag e, W i sco nsi n f aci l i ty f ro m October20 03 to Decem ber20 06. Ino rd er t o re c eiv e th eir w ee kly p ay c h ec ks , Sain t-G ob ain ho ur l y e m pl o y ee s m us t us e a ti m e ca r d t o s wi p e i n a nd out ofan o n-s igh t K ro nos ti m e cl ock

. On Febr uary13 , 20 06 , Kas te n r ec ei ve d a “ D i sc i pl i na r y Act i o n W arni ng N ot ice - V erb al C ou n se lin g W ar n in g” from Sa in t-G ob ain because o fse ver al“i ssues ” Kas ten had w i th r ega rd to p un ch i ngi n a nd o uto n the Kr o no s ti m e cl o ck s. The not i c e s t a t e d tha t“ [ i ] fthe s a me o r a nyo the r v i o l a t i on occur s in the subsequent 12- m onth per i od fro m thi s date of v erb al re m in d e r , a w rit te n w ar n in g m ay be iss u ed .” K ast en si gned the noti ce, acknow l edgi ng tha t he re ad and und er sto od i t. On Augu st3 1, 2 00 6, Kas te n r ecei ve d a wri tt enwar ni ng f r o m de fen dan t, a g ain r el at ed to swi pi ngi n a nd o ut on th e K ronos clocks. T he notice s t ated that “[i ]f the s am e o r any o thervi ol ati on o ccurs i n the subseq u en t 1 2-m on th p er iod from th i s d a t e [sic ] w ill res u lt inN o. 08

- 2820 3 furtherdi sci plinaryact i on up to an d includingte rm i natio n .” K as te n sign ed th e w rit te n w ar n in g, ag ain ac kn o w ledgi ng tha t he re ad and und er sto od i t. On N ove m ber 10, 2006 , pla i nti ff re cei ved yet an other wr i t t e n w a r n i n gfr o m S a i n t
- G o b a i n f o r f a i l u r e t o s wi pe i n a n d o u t, th i s t i me a c c o mpa n i e d b y a o n e d a yd i s c i p l i nar ys us pen si o n. The war ni ngs ta te d tha t “[ t] hi s i s th e l astst ep ofthe disc i pline pro cess ” an d t h at i fano ther vi ol ati on o ccurr ed, furtherdi scipl i ne, i ncl ud i ng te rm i natio n, cou ld res u lt. K as te n sign ed th e w a r n i n g, ag ain ackno w l edgi ng tha t he re ad and und er sto od i t. Pl ai nti ff al l ege s ( though defendant dis pu tes ) thatfro m Octoberthr ough Decem ber, 2006, h e v erbal l y c om pla i ned to hi s s up er vi sor s about the l ega l i ty ofthe l oca ti on o fS ai ntGob ain’ s ti m e cl o ck s. S pec i fi ca l l y, Kas te n c l ai m s th athe tol d his superv i sor s that the lo c atio n ofthe K ro nos c l o c k s p r e v e n t e d e mp l o y e e s f r o m b e i n g p a i d f o r t i me spent donni ng and doffin g thei r re quir ed prot ecti ve g ea r . Re g ar di ng hi s co m pl aint s, pl aint i ff al l eg es ( 1) tha t he to l d De nni s W o o l ve r to n ( hi s shif t s upe r vi so r ) tha t he bel i ev e d the l o c a t i o n o fde fe nd a nt ’ s t i me c l o c k s was i l l ega l ; ( 2) thathe t ol d Lani W i l l i am s ( a Hu m an Resour ces gener al i st) thatthe l oc atio n ofthe ti m e cl ock s w as i l l ega l ; ( 3) thathe t ol d A pri l Luther ( a “ Lead Op er ator ” a nd apparent l y a nothero fKasten’ s s up er viso rs ) that the l ocati on o fthe ti m e cl ock s was i l l ega l ; and ( 4) that he to l d Lu th er t h at he was thi nki ng o fco m m enci ng a l aw sui t r ega rdi ng the l oca ti on o fdefend an t’ s t i m e cl ock s. Sa in t-G ob ain d en ies th at K as te n ev er to ld a n y o fh is su per vi so r s o r any human r es o ur ce s per so nne l tha t he b elie ve d th at th e c loc k loc at ion s w er e illeg al.4 N o. 08

- 2820 On D ecem ber6, 20 06, S ai nt- Go bai n suspended Kasten o n the g r o und tha t he ha d v i o l at ed i ts po l i cyr egard in g t i me c l o c kp un c hi ng f o r th e f o u r th t i me . K a s t e n c l a i ms th at ata m ee tin g re ga rd in g t h is s u sp en s i o n , he ag ain verbal l y tol d hi s supervi sor s that he bel i eve d t h e locati o n of th e cl o ck s was i l l eg ala nd tha t i fhe c ha l l en g ed th e co m pan y i n c o ur t r egard ing the l o ca ti o n o fthe c l o ck s th e com pany w ou ld lo se. S ai nt- Grobain dis pu tes thatKasten c o mpl a i ne d ab o ut the t i me c l o c k s a tthi s me e t i ng . On D ec em b er 11 , 200 6, H u m an R es ou rc es M an ag er D en n is B ro w n to ld K as te n o v e r th e p h on e t h at Sa in t-G ob ain had decided to te rm i nate hi s e m plo ym ent. K ast en file d sui t under the F LSA , cl ai m i ng tha t he had been ter m i nated i n re tal i at ion f orhi s v erbalco m pla i nts regard ing the l ocat ion of th e tim e c locks. Th e d istri ct cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t t o defe nd ant, fi nd i ng tha t K ast en had not engag ed i n prot ecte d acti vi ty because h e h ad n ot“filed an y c om p lain t ” a b ou t t h e a lleg ed ly i l l ega l l oca ti on o fthe ti m e cl ock s. Kasten a pp eal s.

I I . Discussi on The FLSA pro vi des pri vate r em edi es f orem plo yee s w ho have suffer ed adver se em plo ym en t a cti ons as a re sul t o fenga gi ng i n cer tai n prot ecte d acti viti es. S ecti on 215( a) ( 3) o fthe sta tute d efi nes the sc ope o fpro tect ed acti vi ty. I t s tat es, i n re l evantpart : [ I ] t shal l b e u nl a wfulf o r a nyp e r s o n . . . t o di s c ha r ge o r i n an y o th ermanne r di sc r i m i na te a g ains t an y e mp l o y e e b e c a u s e s u c h e mp l o y e e h a s fi l e d a n y c o m-N o. 08

- 2820 5 pl aint o r i ns ti tu te d o r c au se d t o b e i ns ti tu ted an y proce edi ng under or re l ate d to thi s chapte r, o r has tes ti fi ed ori s about to tes ti fy in any such proc eedi ng, or h a s served or is about to serve on an i nd us try com m i tte e. 29 U
. S. C
. § 215(a)( 3). H er e, Kasten s eek s t o estab li sh a cl ai m f orr eta l i ati on base d sol el y o n hi s a lleg at i on that he “fi l ed com pla i nts” wi th h i s e mp l o y e r s r e g a r d i n g th e l o c a t i o n o ft he t i me cl ock s. To det er m ine wh etherKasten e ngage d i n prote ct ed ac ti vi ty, we m us t an swe r t wo que st i o ns abo utthe sco pe ofthe FLSA ’ s r eta li ati on pro vi si on: fi rs t, wh ether i ntra
- com p an y com pla i nts that a re notf or m al l y fi l ed w i th anyj ud i ci alo r ad m in istr ati ve body a re pro tect ed a c t i v i t y ; a n d s e c o n d , w h e th e r u n wr i t t e n v e rb a l c o mpla i nts a re pro tect ed acti vi ty. The dis tr i ct c ourtf ound th at intr a- com pany com pla i nts w er e pr ote cted ac ti vi ty but c on c l ud ed that unw ri tte n verbal com pla i nts were notpro tect ed acti vi ty. Kasten ar gues, al ong w i th a supp or ting a m i cus br i effi l ed by the U

. S. S ecr eta ryo fLabor, thatwe shoul d rev er se th e se co nd po r ti o n o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ngho l d i ng tha tu nwr i t t e n c o mpl a i nt s a r e n o tp r o t e c t e d a c t i vi ty und erthe statu te. They c l ai m thatthe FLSA r eta l i ati on p r o v i s i o n s ho ul d b e r e a d e x p a n s i v e l y t o p r o t e c te mpl o y ee s who m ak e o nl y int erna l, unwr i tt eno bj ec ti o ns to thei r em plo yer s. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t t o d efe n d an t d e n ov o a n d vie w th e e vid en c e in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o th e a p p ella n t. Hanco ck v. P o tter, 531 F.3d 474 , 478 (7th C ir. 2008).6 N o. 08

- 2820

I tappe ar s thatthe p arties i n thos e c as es di d notr ai s e the 1 issues w e are con sid erin g in this ap p eal. A . I n ternal Com p laints The Se venth Ci rcui t has not dir ectly a dd re sse d w hether i nt erna l c o m pl aint s a re pr o te ct ed ac ti vi tyunde r the FLSA ’ s r eta l i ati on pro vi si on, tho ugh w e hav e r evi ew ed t wo c a s e s i n v o l v i ng i n t e r n a l c o mp l a i n t s w i th o u tc o mm en tin g on t h e m at te r. See Sc o tt v. Su nrise Heal th C a re C o rp . , 19 5 F
. 3d 93 8, 94 0- 41 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99 ) (affi r m i ng dism i ssa l o fFLSA ret al i ati on ca se because pl ai nti ffhad not shown a causal c onn ecti on be tw een he r com pla i nts an d h er lat er d isc h ar ge ); see also Sh ea v . Ga la xie L um ber Cons t r . Co. , 152 F. 3d 729, 731, 734- 36 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( re ver si ng a denia l o fpuniti ve dam age s in a c ase wh er e a n empl o y ee ha d b ee n di sc ha r g ed afte r c o m pl aini ngt o the com p an y pres iden t). 1 St atuto ryi nter preta ti on be gins w i th “the l anguage o f the s tatute i tse l f[ and] [ a] bsent a cl ear l y e xpresse d l egi sl ativ e in te n tio n to th e c o n t r ar y, th at lan gu ag e m u st ord inari l y be r ega rded as concl usi ve. ” Sa pp erstein v. Hager, 18 8 F
. 3d 85 2, 85 7 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( i nt erna l quot at i o n m ar k s an d ci tat i on o m i tte d) ( i nter preting r eta l i ati on pro vi si on o f FLSA but not disc ussi ng wh etheri nter nal co m pla i nts w er e p ro te c te d co n d u c t); se e also Consum erProd. Safe ty C om m ’n v. G TE Sylvania , 4 47U. S
. 1 02 , 1 07( 19 80 )
. Her e, the pla i n l anguage o fthe sta tute i nd i cate s that i nter nal, i ntra
com pany com pla i nts ar e prot ecte d. The re tal i ati on p ro vi si on s tat es that it i s “ unlawfulf orany perso n to di scharg e . . . any em plo yee b ecause such e m plo yee hasN o. 08

- 2820 7 fi l e d any com plaint

. . . . ” 2 9 U .S.C . § 21 5(a )(3) (em p h as is ad ded )
. A s Kasten poi nts o ut, the sta tute does not l i m it the types ofco m pla i nts which wil l suffi ce, and i n f act m od ifies th e w or d “c om p lain t” w ith th e w or d “a n y.” Th u s , th e l a n g u a g e o fth e s t a t u t e w o u l d s e e m t o i n c l ud e i nter nal, i ntra
- com pany com pla i nts a s pro tect ed acti vi ty. The m aj or i ty ofci rcui t co urts consi deri ng the questi on have al so found that“a ny co m pla i nt” incl ud es i nter nal c om p lain ts
. SeeHaga n v. Echo st ar Sate llite, LLC , 52 9 F
. 3d 617, 62 5 ( 5th Ci r. 20 08) ( i nter nal co m pla i nt co nsti tutes p ro te c te d ac tiv ity ); M oorev. Fre e m an , 3 55 F. 3d 558 ( 6th C ir. 2004) (inform al com p lai nt s are prote cted activity); Lam be rtv. Ackerly, 18 0 F
. 3d 1004, 10 04 (9 th C i r. 19 99) (se c tio n 15 (a)( 3) p ro te c ts “e m p loy ee s w h o c om p lain a b o u t v iola tio n s t o th eir em p loy er s” ); Va l e r i o v . Pu t nam A sso ciates, Inc. , 1 73 F
. 3d 35 , 4 1 ( 1s t Ci r . 1 99 9) ( “Byf ai l i ng to speci fy that the fi l i ng o fany c om pla i nt nee d be with a co ur t o r a n a g en cy, a nd b y usi ngthe wor d ‘ an y, ’ Co ngr es s left o pen the pos sibi l i ty that i t intended ‘co m pla i nt’ to re l ate to l ess f or m alexpre ssi ons ofpro tes t .
. . co nveye d to an em p loy er .”); E E O C v. W hit e & S o n E nterp rises , 88 1 F. 2d 1006 , 10 11 ( 11th Cir
. 19 89) ( em plo yees’ i nter nal com p lai nt s t o sup ervisor abou t un eq ua l p ay w ere asserti o ns o fr i g ht s unde r the Equa l Pa y Act , p art o fthe FLSA ); L o ve v. RE /M A Xof Am er ica, Inc. , 73 8 F
. 2d 383, 38 7 (1 0t h C ir. 19 84 ) (sa m e); but se e B all v. M em phis B ar-B-Q Co. , 22 8 F
. 3d 360, 36 3- 365 ( 4th Ci r. 20 00) ( hol ding that 29 U
. S. C
. § 21 5(a)( 3) does not p rotect inte rna l com p lai nt s). Because we co ncl ud e, i n l i ne wit h t he va st m aj or i ty of c irc u it c ou rt s t o co n sid er th is iss u e, th at th e p lain8 N o. 08

- 2820 l a n g u a g e o f2 9 U
. S
. C
. § 2 1 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) i nc l ud e s i n t e r n a l c o mpla i nt s a s pr o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y, we a ffi r m the j ud g ment of the di s t r i c tc o ur ti n thi s r e g a r d.

B. U n w ri tt en Com p laints The next quest i on per tinent to thi s a pp eali s whether unw ri tte n, purel y v erbalco m pla i nts a re pro tect ed acti vi ty und erthe sta tute. Ag a i n, we s t a r twi th the l a ngua g e o fthe st atute
. Sapp erst ei n , 18 8 F
. 3d at 857. The FLSA ’ s r eta l i ati on pro vi si on pro hibi ts “dis charg [ i ng]
. . . any em plo yee bec ause such em plo yee has filed a nyc o mpl ai nt . .
. . ” 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 1 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( e mpha s i s ad de d)

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tr e a s o ne d: Expr es singan or alc o m pl ainti s no t th e sa m e as fi l i ng a co m pla i nt. By defi ni ti on , t h e word “fi l e” re fer s t o “a co l l ec ti o n ofpape r s, re co r ds, et c. , a r r an g ed i n a c o nveni ent o rder, ” Rando m H ouse W ebst er ’ s Col l ege D ictionary 489 (2d ed

. 1999), or, w he n us ed i n ve rb f or m as i t i s in the sta tu te , “[ t] o del i ver( a paper or in st ru m en t) t o th e p ro p er offic er so th at it is r e c ei ved by h i m t o k e pto n fi l e , o r a mon gthe r e c o r ds of his offi ce,” W ebst er’s N ew Inte rna tional Diction ary o fthe Eng l i sh L ang ua g e 94 5 ( 2d ed. 1 95 8)
. One cannot “fi l e” an oralcom pla i nt; there i s no docum ent, su cha s a p ape r o r r ec o r d, t o de l i ve r t o s o m eo ne w ho ca n put i t in i ts properpl ace. Pla in ti ffdi sag re es w i th thi s inter preta ti on. H e a rgues that “to file” is a bro ad ter m thathas seve ra l m eani ngs, in c lu d in g, ge n er ally , “to su b m it.”N o. 08

- 2820 9

The Se c re t ar y ofL aborcl ai m s tha tb ec aus e “i ti s no tc l ea r f ro m 2 the p hr a se ‘f i le an y com p lain t’ tha t a com p lain t m u st be in w ri ti ng, the Secre tar y’ s reas onab le i nter pretat ion that both oral and wri t t enc om pl ai nt s ar e pro t ec ted is en t i t l ed t o S ki dm ore d eference. ” H ow ever, the S e c r e t a r y’ s i nt e r pr e t a t i ono f“ fi l ed any c om pl ai nt ” a ppea rs to re s ts ol el y ona l i t i gat i ng po s i t i on ra the r than ona Depar t m en tofLabor r eg ul at i on, r ul i ng, or adm ini st rat ive pract ic e, and is the ref ore not enti tl ed to def eren ce . Se e Smi l ey v . Ci t i ba nk, 51 7U .S. 7 3 5 , 7 4 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) (“[W ]e d e n y d eferen ce ‘ to a g en cy litigatin g p osition s that a re w ho lly unsup ported b y regulat io n s, ruli ngs, or adm ini st rat ive practi ce .’ The d el iberat enes s ofs uch po si ti ons, i fnot i nd eed thei r author i t at i ven es s , i s s us pec t
. ”) ( c i t i ng B ow en v. G eorget ow n U ni v. Hospi t al, 48 8 U .S. 2 0 4 , 21 2 (19 8 8 )). Looking o nl y a t the l anguage of the s tatute, we bel i eve th atthe di st r i ct c o ur t co r r ec tly c o nc l ude d tha t unwr i tt en, pur ely v erba l co m pl aint s ar e no t pr o te ct ed ac ti vi ty
. The use o fthe verb “t o fi l e” conn ot es the use o fa w ri ti ng. W eb st er ’ s N i nth New Co l l eg i at e Di ct i o na r y de fi ne s th e verb “t o fi l e” as 1. to a r r a ng e i n o r de r f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n a nd r e fe r e nc e <“fi l e l ett er s”> 2. a: to p lace am ong offi ci alr eco rds a s p rescribed by l aw <“fi le a m ortgage” > b: to p erform th e fi rs t a ct o f( as a l aw sui t) <“ thre ate ned to file charg es aga i nst hi m ”> Thi s defi ni ti o n a cc o r ds wi thwhat we b el i ev e to b e th e com m on u n d er sta nd i ng o fthe verb “t o fi l e. ” Altho ugh K ast en and the Se cre tar y o fLabor c laim that “t o fi l e” can mea n, g e ne r a l l y, “ t o s ub mi t, ” thi s s e e ms t o u s o v e rb r o a d. 2 I f an i ndi vi dualt o l d a fr i en d tha t sh e “fi l ed a co m pl aint10 N o. 08

- 2820

w ith he r em p loyer, ” w e d o ub t the friend w ou ld u nd ersta nd herto poss ibl y m ean that s he m er el y v oiced disp leasure to a sup ervis o r . Ra th er, the n atu ral un d erst an di ngo fthe phr as e “fi l e an y c om pl aint ” r equi r es the subm i ssi on o fso m e w rit in g t o an em plo yer, co urt, o r ad m in ist ra tiv e b od y. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Bank of Far m i ngt on , 166 F.3d 85 3, 86 0 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 99 ) (“W or d s in a st atut e ar e to b e g i ve n the i r pl ain a nd o r dina r y mean i ng. ”) ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. Jam es , 4 78 U
. S. 597, 604 (1986 ))
. O th er circuit cou rts t ha t hav e tackled this i ssu e are spl i t. The Fo urth Ci rcuitf ound that v erbalco m pla i nts wer e no t pr o te ct ed ac ti vi tyi n B a ll v. M em ph is B a r-B -Q C o ., Inc . , 22 8 F
. 3d 360, 364 (4th Cir
. 2000)
. T he co urt re cogni zed that the F LSA ’ s “statutor y l anguage cl ear l y pl aces l i m i ts on th e ra n ge of re ta liat ion p ro sc rib ed by th e a c t.” Sp ec ifica l l y, i n int er pr et i ngthe “ te st i m o ny ” cl au se of the FLSA ’ s r eta l i ati on pro vi si on, the Four th Ci rcui t hel d that the F LSA “proh ibits r eta l i ati on f orte sti m ony gi ven o r a b o u tt o b e g i ve n bu t not foran e m ployee’s voicing of a p o s i t i on o n w o r k i n gc o n d i t i o n s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o a n e mplo yer . ” Id

. ( em phasi s a dd ed ). Although the Four th Cir cui t a cknowle dged that the r eta l i ati on i n that case

— whi chf o l l o wed a n empl o y ee ’ s st at ementt o the c o m pan y p re si den t th at, i fhe wer e depo se d i n a l aws ui t, he w oul d not t est i fy t o the pr esi dent’s sugg est ed ver si on o f eve nts

— w as “m or al l y unacce ptabl e, ” the co urt concl ud ed that a f ai thful i nterp re ta tio n ofthe sta tute did notr eco gni ze m ere statem ents to a s up er vi soras a prot ecte d acti vity
. Id .; s e e a ls o L am b e r tv. Ge nes e eHos pi t al , 10 F. 3d 46, 55 ( 2d Cir

. 19 93) ( “T he pl ai n l anguage o fthi s pro vi si on l i mi t s the c a us e o f a c t i o n t o r e t a l i a t i o n f o r fi l i ng f or m alN o. 08

- 2820 11

The p la intiffand Secret ary ofLab or ci te L am bert v. A ckerl ey, 3 1 8 0 F. 3 d 9 9 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) a nd Lo vev. R E/M A X of Am e r i ca, Inc ., 7 3 8 F
. 2d 383 ( 10th Cir

. 1984) t o s up po r t the i r c on t e nt i onthat un w ri tt en com plaint s are c overed b y the s tatute. H ow ever, a l th o u gh A cke rl ey a nd L ove c ont ai n f avor abl e l ang uage f or (co n tin u ed ...) com pla i nts, i nsti tuti ng a proce eding, o r tes ti fyi ng, but does not encom pass c om pla i nts m ade to a supervi sor . ”) ( ci tations om itted ). Other cour ts have fo u nd o ra l co m pla i nts t o be pr otect ed acti vi ty, but i t i s di ffi cul t t o d raw gui dance fro m th e se d ec isio n s b ec au se m an y of t h em d o n otsp ec ifica lly sta te w hetherthe com pla i nt i n questi on w as w ri tte n or pu re l y verbal, and none di scusse s the st atute ’ s use o f th e v erb “t o file” an d w h et h er it req u ire s a w rit in g. See E E O Cv. Ro m eo Com m u n it y Schools , 97 6 F
. 2d 985, 98 9- 90 (6th C ir. 1992) (holding, w ithou t d iscus sion of the verbal/wri tte n dis ti ncti on, thatpl ain tiff’ s a pp ar entl y o ra l com p lai nt s to sup ervisors w ere p rotecte d activity); E E O Cv. W

hit e & So n E nters
. , 88 1 F.2 d 1006, 10 11 ( 11th C ir. 19 89 ) (h old in g, w ith ou t d isc u ss ion of th e v erb al/ w ri tte n dis ti ncti on, thatpl ai nti ff s’ o ra l co m pla i nts w er e p ro te c te d ac tiv ity ); Brock v. Ri ch ardson , 81 2 F
. 2d 121, 12 5 ( 8th Ci r . 1 98 7) ( ho l d ing, wi th o utdi sc us si o n o fthe verbal/wri tte n distin cti on, thatdefendant’s m i sta ken bel i ef that pla i nti ff had m ade apparentl y oral com pla i nts to su p er vis or s w as gro u n d s fo r su it); B re nn a n v . M axey’s Yam aha , 5 13 F
. 2d 17 9, 1 83 ( 8th Ci r . 1 975) ( ho l di ng, wi th o ut d i s c u s s i o n o fth e v e rb a l /wr i t t e n d i s t i n c t i o n, th a te mp loyee’s “voici ng ” of con cern w as p rotecte d activity). 312 N o. 08

- 2820

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 th ei r a rg u m en t, s e e Ac k e rl ey at10 08 ( “[ I ] ti s c l ea r thats o l ong as an em ployee com m unicat es the subs t anceofhi s al l eg at i ons to th e e m p lo y er . . . he is p ro te ct e d b y s ec tio n 21 5 (a )(3)); Love, at 387 ( “th e u no fficial assertio n of rig hts thr ou g h c o m p lain ts at work” is protec ted act ivity); thos e c ases concer ned w ri tt en com p lain ts filed w ith em p loy ers. Despit e these contr ar y fi nd i n gs b y som e o therci rcui ts, ou r i nter preta ti on of the phrase “fi l e any com pla i nt ” is c on firm ed by t h e f a c t t h at C on gr es s c ou ld h av e, bu t d id n ot, us e b ro ad er lan gu ag e in th e F L SA ’s re ta liat ion p ro visi on. Fo r exam ple , anal ogo us pro vis i ons i n other sta tutes, in cl ud i ng Ti tl e VI Iand the A ge Disc ri m i nati on i n Empl o y m en t Act, f o rbi d e m pl o y er s f r o m r et al i at i ng aga i nst a ny em plo yee wh o “has opposed any pract i ce” th at is u n law fu l un d er th e s ta tu te s. See 42 U
. S. C. § 2 000e

3( a) ; 29 U
. S. C. § 6 23( d). Thi s br oader phrase , “o pp ose d any pr acti ce, ” does notr equi re a “fi l [ i ng] , ” a nd has been in t e r p r et ed to p ro te c t v erb al c om p lain ts
. See, e.g., Ko tch er v. R osa and Sulli van A ppliance C tr
. , Inc. , 9 57 F. 2d 59, 65 (2d Ci r. 19 92)
. Congr ess ’ s s el ecti on o fthe narr ower “file an y c om pla i nt” l anguage in the FLSA thus a pp ear s t o b e s ign ifica n t. SeeBa ll, 2 28 F
. 3d at3 64 (n otingtha t “Co ng r es s ha s cr afte d .

. . b r o ade ra nt i

- r et al i at i o n pr o vi si o ns el sewhere” but “the ca u se o fact i on f orr eta l i ati on under th e F L S A is m uc h m ore circum scribed ”); G enesee H os pi t al , 10 F. 3d at 55 ( noti ng that the FL SA u ses narr ower l anguage i n i ts re tal i ati on pro vi si on than T itl e VII ). F i na l l y, we ar e awar e th at “ ‘ th e r emedi alna tu r e o fthe [ FLSA ]
. . . warra nts a n expansi ve i nterp re tat i on o fi tsN o. 08

- 2820 13 pr o v i s i o ns . . . . ’ ” Sapp erst ei n , 1 88 F
. 3d at8 57( quo ting Herm a n v . RS R Secu rity Servi ces , 172 F.3d 132 , 139 (2d Cir. 19 99 ) )
. Bute xpa ns i ve i nterpr et at i o n i s o ne thi ng ; r ea di ng wo r d s o ut o fa s t a t u t e i s qu i t e a n o th e r . B e c a u s e we b e l i e v e th a tth e F L S A’ s u s e o fth e p h r a s e “ fi l e a n y c o mp l a i n t ” r e q u i r e s a p l a i n t i ff e mp l o y e e t o s u b mi ts o me so r t o fwri ting, we ag r ee wi th th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co ncl usi on that K as ten’s al l ege d com pla i nts were notpro tect ed acti vi ty und erthe sta tute.

I I I . Concl usio n F o r the r ea so ns e xpl aine d abo ve , we affi r m the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

6- 29- 09