Dolores Sloviter

Name: Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court
Author: Dolores Sloviter

Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Dolores Sloviter. It explores elements such as employee, back pay awards and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quotes from Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court (Dolores Sloviter)

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ The parties have directed us to no case, nor have we found one, considering whether an employer's belief that an employee has engaged in protected activity is sufficient to trigger application of section 15 (a) (3) . Nonetheless, we reject Richardson's argument that the section is inapplicable if the employer's perception turns out to be mistaken. The Fair Labor Standards Act is part of the large body of humanitarian and remedial legislation enacted during the Great Depression, and has been liberally interpreted. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ Richardson argues that in order to prove a violation of section 15 (a) (3) , the government must show both that the discharged employee engaged in one of the specified overt acts and that the employer was aware of the act. He contends that because Banyas did not in fact file a complaint, and because the court did not find that Banyas engaged in one of the acts specifically protected under the statute, [2] there can be no violation of the statute. According to Richardson, the employer's mere belief that the employee has engaged in protected conduct is not enough. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ In each of these instances, the employee's activities were considered necessary to the effective assertion of employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and thus entitled to protection. [3]
It is also of some relevance that section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a) (3) , which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in order to discourage membership in any labor organization, has been held to apply to protect employees even if they did not in fact engage in protected activity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ Of course, that reason would be equally applicable to all judgments for money, and, therefore, does not explain why back pay awards merit different treatment. However, Chief Judge Feinberg, who authored the opinion, also noted that such interest is "especially appropriate for wage earners, who ordinarily do not have access to resources other than their wages to meet the necessities of daily living." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ We are not here dealing with mere chattels or articles of trade but with the rights of those who toil, of those [p124] who sacrifice a full measure of their freedom and talents to the use and profit of others. Those are the rights that Congress has specially legislated to protect. Such a statute must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.
Id. at 597.
The anti-retaliation provision was designed to encourage employees to report suspected wage and hour violations by their employers. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ For it needs no argument to show that fear of economic retaliation might often operate to induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard conditions. Cf. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 397, 42 L. Ed. 780, 18 S.C.t. 383 [ (1898) ] . By the proscription of re-taliatory acts set forth in § 15 (a) (3) , and its enforcement in equity by the Secretary pursuant to § 17, Congress sought to foster a climate in which compliance with the substantive provisions of the Act would be enhanced. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Dolores Sloviter, Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court

“ The Secretary, however, introduced evidence presenting the discharge in a different light. In early September 1980, Donovan Durbin, a compliance officer with the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, contacted Richardson regarding an investigation of the firm for overtime violations, apparently in response to an employee complaint dated January 2, 1978. This complaint was not filed by Banyas. ”

Dolores Sloviter

Summary

Quotes from Brock v. Richardson — Opinion of the Court (Dolores Sloviter)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature