Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. Tenn.: Employee unable to show that discharge was in retaliation for overtime complaints, (Apr 8, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee alleged that he complained about not receiving overtime to both of his supervisors.

An employer was granted its motion for summary judgment against claims of a truck driver who alleged it failed to pay for lunch breaks he worked through, or for overtime, and discharged him in retaliation for overtime complaints. The employee was entitled to a 30-minute unpaid lunch break. Here, the federal district court in Tennessee determined that the employee failed to rebut one of his employer’s legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for his termination (Warren v. Chester County, Tennessee, No. 1:23-cv-01097-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2025)).

Lunch breaks. In March 2022, the employee began working for Chester County Solid Waste Department as a truck driver on a cardboard recycling route. After he began his employment, it was explained to him that lunch breaks were unpaid. The employer asserted that the employee was instructed that he must take a 30-minute lunch break and that his workday would begin at 7:30 to allow for this break.

The employee claimed that a supervisor said his timesheet had to reflect the 30-minute lunch break, regardless of whether he chose to work through it or not and that if he did, he still would not be paid for that time.

Overtime claim. In addition to pay owed for lunch breaks he worked through, the employee alleged that the volume of cardboard produced by Chester County schools at the end of the school year required him to work overtime. For its part, the employer asserted that the employee never worked full-time hours, let alone overtime. Further, it contended that the employee was not required to work overtime.

On June 1, 2022, another supervisor attempted to assist the employee with his timesheet. According to the employer, the employee became angry, speaking loudly and using profanity. Following this incident, the employee was issued verbal write-up for using inappropriate language. The employee denied that he yelled or swore during this interaction and stated that he never received a verbal or written warning following it.

Discharge. On June 10, 2022, the employee called his supervisor on her cellphone while she was in her vehicle with her children. According to the supervisor, the employee “lost his temper,” called her a “bitch,” and her children overheard this. The employee denied using such language.

On June 13, the employee and supervisor met in her office. During the meeting, the supervisor asked the employee how much overtime he was owed, and he responded that he would need to review his timesheets. The supervisor replied, “Well I’ll make sure you get these hours. And as of now, we no longer need you.” The employee was given a separation notice.

Budget constraints. In addition to the alleged incidents of insubordination, the employer cited budget constraints as a reason for the employee’s termination. In March 2022, the heads of Solid Waste learned that the department would be subject to an $80,000 budget cut for the next fiscal year. A solid waste disposal fee implemented by the County Commission was insufficient to cover the shortfall from a nursing home closure and Solid Waste was expecting a loss of revenue of $191,825.

Retaliation. Because the employee had not established direct evidence of retaliation, the court turned to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under this framework, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The court must consider “whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry.”

Prima facie case. “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under [the] FLSA... ‘an employee must prove that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity under the FLSA; (2) his or her exercise of this right was known by the employer; (3) thereafter, the employer took an employment action adverse to [him]; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.’” The employer asserted that the employee did not satisfied elements one, two, and four of the prima facie case.

Protected activity. An employee has engaged in protected activity under the FLSA when he has “filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the FLSA], or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.” It is well-established in the Sixth Circuit that “[a]n informal complaint constitutes protected activity under the FLSA.” An employee must subjectively believe his employer is engaging in unlawful conduct and that belief must be objectively reasonable.

Objectively reasonable belief. The employer argued that the employee’s belief that he was denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA was not objectively reasonable because he conceded in deposition that his timesheets did not reflect working full-time hours. The employee conceded that fact. Moreover, the department head testified that he never assigned the employee jobs that would require overtime.

Here, the parties disputed whether the employee achieved full-time status, which is required for him to receive overtime pay. Second, the employee maintained that his timesheets did not reflect the actual number of hours worked. As a consequence, the court concluded that these disputes alone created a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the employee had an objectively reasonable belief that he was denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA.

Moreover, there was no question that filing a cause of action seeking overtime pay is an FLSA-protected activity. The employee alleged that he complained to both of his supervisors about not receiving overtime. Thus, the employee had set forth a genuine issue of fact as to whether he engaged in an FLSA protected activity.

Notice. The employee alleged he complained to both his supervisors about not receiving overtime pay and further stated to one of them that he believed not paying overtime “was against the law.” For its part, the employer contended that any complaints made by the employee stemmed from his inability to understand its timesheets or payroll structure. Thus, the employer would have known that the employee was asserting his FLSA rights when he complained about not receiving overtime pay.

Causation. For the causation element to be satisfied, “the plaintiff’s burden entails... ‘requiring [him] to put forth some evidence to deduce a causal connection between the retaliatory action and the protected activity and requiring the court to draw reasonable inferences from that evidence, providing it is credible.” One way to demonstrate a causal connection is temporal proximity.

Here, the employee alleged that on the morning of his termination, he complained to both of his supervisors that he had unpaid overtime hours. Following a discussion about these hours, his employment was terminated. The immediacy of the termination following this confrontation about the employee’s hours was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find a causal connection between the protected activity and the termination.

Legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons. The employer set forth two reasons for the employee’s discharge: (1) he engaged in two alleged incidents of insubordination involving obscene outbursts; and (2) the County Commission cut the Solid Waste budget by $80,000 due to an expected loss of revenue. The court accepted these as legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the employee’s discharge.

Pretext. To establish pretext, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that the defendant’s articulated legitimate, [non-retaliatory] reason either: (1) lacks a basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate [his] discharge, or (3) was insufficient to motivate [his] discharge.”

As to the employer’s first legitimate, nonretaliatory reason, the employee put forth evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact that he engaged in the two alleged obscene outbursts that the employer cited as the basis for his termination. Not only did the employee dispute that he used foul language toward his supervisors, one of the supervisors testified only to his aggravation during their encounter, not his yelling or swearing. Considered in combination with the temporal proximity between the employee’s protected activity and firing, the court found that he put forth sufficient rebuttal evidence to create a question for the jury as to whether the employer acted “in reasonable reliance” on the “particularized facts” relating to this reason.

However, the employee had not put forth evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact that he was discharged for budgetary reasons. His supervisors learned well before his termination that the department was experiencing an $80,000 budget cut. While the employee was correct that changing rationales can demonstrate pretext, in this instance, the record suggested that the employer was supplementing its explanations, rather than changing them, and did not demonstrate pretext. Thus, the employee failed to rebut the employer’s second legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for his termination and had not shown pretext.

Accordingly, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-01097-JDB-jay.

Judge: Breen, J.

Attorneys: Sara Barnett (Spragins, Barnett & Cobb) for Anthony Warren. Andrew V. Sellers (Purcell, Sellers & Craig) for Chester County, Tennessee.

Companies: Chester County, Tennessee

Cases: Retaliation WageHour WorkingTime Overtime Discharge TennesseeNews