Opinion ID: 768289
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Anti-Retaliation Provision

Text: 29 Finally, the FLSA contains an anti-retaliation provision that prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for filing complaints about violations of the Act. It states that it is unlawful: 30 [T]o discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee. 31 29 U.S.C. S 215(a)(3). 32 We recently held that the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision protects not only employees who have filed complaints in court or with an agency such as the Department of Labor but also employees who have complained to their employers. See Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 936 (2000). Lambert said that the FLSA is a remedial statute . . . [that] must be interpreted broadly. Lambert, 180 F.3d at 1003 (citing Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Mucoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944)). Furthermore, Lambert stated that the purposes of the anti-retaliation provision are: (1) to provide an incentive for employees to report wage and hour violations by their employers; id.; (2)  `to prevent fear of economic retaliation by an employer against an employee who chose to voice such a grievance' ; id. at 1004 (quoting EEOC v. White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006, 1011 (11th Cir. 1989)); and to ensure that employees are not compelled to risk their jobs in order to assert their wage and hour rights under the Act. Id.