Proving an Overtime Claim by Commissioned Employees
ADT fired two commissioned salespeople because they filed a complaint with the Maryland Department of Labor claiming that they were owed overtime. In Randolph v. ADT Security Services, Inc., Judge Chasanow from the District Court of Maryland granted the plaintiffs’ and former ADT Security employees’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to liability against their former employer.
The complaint alleged a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). During the DLLR proceedings the DLLR requested that the ADT employees produce alleged employer and client confidential information. ADT argued that the employees were lawfully terminated because they were not allowed to give out confidential information. And as such, the plaintiffs should not receive protection under the FLSA on the theory that confidential documents were included in the FLSA complaints.
To punish employees for complying with the DLLR’s instructions doesn’t seem fair. The court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, stating:
Perversely, ADT’s position would result in a situation wherein employees with the most supporting evidence would also face the greatest risk of dismissal. As a result, enforcement agencies would be less able to undertake early assessments of employees’ claims, as employees could not be expected to provide much evidence on their own (for fear of exposing themselves to termination). Employers would then have to face greater government intrusions into their business while the complaint was investigated; because of the lack of early information, these investigations would likely last longer. Meanwhile, employers would have an incentive to cull through every document attached to an FLSA complaint, looking for any violation of company policy in an effort to forestall expensive litigation.
More problematically, they could simply choose to impair the ability of employees to make claims at all by dubbing all possible supporting documentation “confidential.” Such a situation would grossly undermine enforcement of the FLSA, which hinges upon “information and complaints received from employees” (citation omitted). The FLSA anti-retaliation is about the free sharing of information
The court referred back to the definition of “complaint” and its use in standard civil litigation that “embraces attached supporting documentation.” The court further ruled that cases in which the employees participate in an investigation, permits employees to disclose confidential information to investigators even when done unreasonably.
Finally the conclusion of the court:
ADT’s explicit admissions that Plaintiffs lost their jobs because of the filings with the DLLR mandate only one conclusion: ADT retaliated against Plaintiffs because they engaged in a protected activity. Summary judgment must therefore be granted for the Plaintiffs on count one of the complaint on the issue of liability.
There are two things you can take way from this case: One that retaliation laws would likely apply if you are fired for filing a complaint with the labor board or in the courts, and two, any information you have, proprietary or not, may be used to prove your case. It’s important to save information that supports your claim for labor violations you may have suffered. If you are concerned that you may be owed unpaid wages for overtime, it is advisable to contact a California labor law attorney to help you evaluate your rights.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Zoran Orcik