Opinion ID: 1843765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discriminatory discharge

Text: The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits discrimination against an employee who asserts or threatens to assert his or her FLSA rights. Brennan v. Maxey's Yamaha, Inc., 513 F.2d 179, 180 (8th Cir.1975). In Brennan, we note the following relevant discussion: Where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employee's assertion of statutory rights, the discharge is discriminatory under [29 U.S.C.] § 215(a)(3) whether or not other grounds for discharge exist. Goldberg v. Bama Manufacturing Corp., 302 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1962); Mitchell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 278 F.2d 562 (8th Cir.1960). In the Mitchell case we reversed as clearly erroneous the trial court's finding that an employee's discharge was unrelated to his mailing a letter of complaint to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor a few days earlier. On the contrary, the record revealed that although a few days before his wage-hour complaint he had been scheduled for future discharge, he would not have been discharged at that particular time but for his admission of authorship of the letter. Similarly, in Goldberg the Fifth Circuit remanded the trial court's refusal to grant reimbursement of lost wages to an employee who could have, and in the court's opinion, `probably ought' to have been fired for half a dozen reasons, where the firing was motivated in part by the assertion of her statutory rights. 302 F.2d at 153. [Emphasis added]. Id., at 181. Thus, where an employee is fired and the termination is motivated in any part by the employee's assertion of rights under the Act, such termination is deemed discriminatory. In this case, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact: 8. In January, 1990, Hageman told Lori Larson, an assistant resident manager at Park West Gardens, that he was going to file a claim against the Defendants. In March 1990, Larson was instructed not to write up work orders for Hageman because of the lawsuit. 9. After Hageman served the Summons and Complaint in this action, he was told by the Defendants, or their agents, that he would not be getting any more work orders. 10. Some of the residents at Park West Gardens did not like Hageman. The Defendants received some complaints about Hageman.       19. On March 6, 1990, Hageman served the Summons and Complaint in this action because the statute of limitations is two years and he did not feel he was getting anywhere with the Defendants. Hageman went to the Park West Gardens office that morning and every morning thereafter for two weeks and was told by Barb Skaurud that there was no work for him. On March 9, 1990, Skaurud told Hageman there was no work because he had sued them. Hageman received no written termination notice from the Defendants.       38. The Defendants' decision in March, 1990, to discontinue Hageman's services at Park West Gardens was based on a number of complaints received from tenants about Hageman or his work and the fact that Midwest had other people available to do the repair and maintenance work. This decision was not retaliatory as a result of Hageman's lawsuit against the Defendants. [Emphasis added.] Additionally, the trial court stated, in its conclusions of law, the Defendants' decision to discontinue using Hageman for repair and maintenance services was not retaliatory and is not a wrongful discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. What is significant in finding of fact 38 as well as the trial court's ultimate conclusion is the way it characterizes the termination as a decision to discontinue Hageman's services. This choice of language suggests that the trial court's findings may have been dependent on its erroneous conclusion that Hageman was an independent contractor. Given this fact and the otherwise seeming inconsistencies in the trial court's findings, we conclude that this issue of discrimination must be remanded for additional findings consistent with this opinion.