Diana K. Powell v. Washington Post Company and James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor
105 U.S. App. D.C. 374 · 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4868 · 267 F.2d 651
April 23, 1959 · Docket 14823_1
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The statute expressly authorizes recovery of wages and overtime, plus liquidated damages, and provides no other civil remedy for employees.
- Headnote 2
An employee who is discharged in retaliation for reporting FLSA violations has no private right of action for reinstatement, back‑pay, or injunctive relief unless the employee also asserts a claim for unpaid wages or overtime.
The Act’s anti‑retaliation provision does not itself create a civil cause of action; without a wage‑or‑overtime claim, the employee cannot sue for retaliatory discharge.
- Headnote 3
The statutory language makes clear that the Secretary’s decision to bring actions to restrain violations is a matter of executive discretion, not subject to judicial mandate.
- Headnote 4
Because the Act supplies no civil cause of action for retaliatory discharge absent a wage‑or‑overtime claim, the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment is affirmed.
- Headnote 5
Section 211(a) authorizes recovery of back wages, and section 216(b) allows liquidated damages. The statute does not provide any other private remedy for employees.
- Headnote 6
The Act’s anti‑retaliation provision, § 15(a)(3), does not itself create a private right of action. Thus, a retaliatory discharge claim alone is unrecoverable.
- Headnote 7
The statute expressly reserves enforcement discretion to the Secretary, and any request to compel action is barred by that language.
- Headnote 8
Because the plaintiff asserted no wage or overtime claim, the district court’s dismissal of the employer’s liability and summary judgment in favor of the Secretary were affirmed.
- Headnote 9
Section 211(a) authorizes recovery of minimum‑wage deficits and section 216(b) provides for liquidated damages. The statute does not create any other employee‑initiated cause of action.
- Headnote 10
Section 15(a)(3) identifies protected activity but does not itself create a cause of action for damages, reinstatement, or injunctive relief. The remedy is limited to wage‑related claims.
- Headnote 11
The anti‑retaliation provision is remedial but provides no private enforcement mechanism beyond the wage‑recovery provisions of the Act.
- Headnote 12
The statute states that, except as provided in section 12, the Secretary shall bring all actions to restrain violations, making the Secretary’s decision a matter of executive discretion.
- Headnote 13
The district court dismissed the employer and granted summary judgment for the Secretary because the plaintiff sought only reinstatement and back‑pay without asserting any wage‑related claim.
Opinion
This is a civil action brought by our appellant, Diana K. Powell. She alleged she had been employed as a part-time clerk by The Washington Post Company; she several times notified responsible officers of the Company that clerks in its employ were working in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and, when the Company was informed of her intention to submit the matter to the Department of Labor, she was discharged. She alleged this discharge was in violation of Section 15(a) (3) of the Act. 1 2 She prayed that the Company be required to reinstate her in adequate suitable employment and pay her compensation for the time she was unemployed, that the defendant Secretary of Labor be required to investigate the conditions described in her complaint, and that he take such further action as might be necessary to restrain continued violations of the Act. The Washington Post Company moved to dismiss, and the Secretary filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings and then a motion for summary judgment. Attached to the latter motion was an affidavit of an official of the Department of Labor, showing he had made an investigation of the operations of the Company and had been unable to find any evidence of violation of the statute. An affidavit filed by the plaintiff verified the fact that such an investigation had been made. The District Court dismissed as to The Washington Post Company and granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment.
Section 11(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 2 provides, in part: “Except as provided in section 12, the Secretary of Labor shall bring all actions under section 17 to restrain violations of this Act.” In so far as plaintiff’s prayer relates to action by the Secretary to restrain violations, the answer is that the appeal is to his discretion, as the quoted provision of the statute makes clear. In so far as she prayed that the Secretary be required to investigate, the answer is undisputed that such an investigation was made. In so far as The Washington Post Company is concerned, the Fair Labor Standards Act makes no provision for a civil action by an employee to recover damages for discharge in violation of the Act or for reinstatement. The statute does provide 3 that employees may recover in a civil action unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. But our appellant did not claim unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation.
The judgment of the District Court must be and is affirmed. 4
Affirmed.
. . 52 Stat. 1068 (1938), 29 U.S.C.A. § 215 (a) (3).
. . 52 Stat. 1066 (1938) as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 211(a).
. . 52 Stat. 1009 (1938), as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b).
. . Compare Bowe v. Judson C. Burns, 137 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1943); Roberg v. Henry Phipps Estate, 156 F.2d 958 (2d Cir. 1946).