John T. Dunlop, Secretary of Labor v. Carriage Carpet Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a former employee was protected under the FLSA even though the statute did not refer to \former employees\
• holding that an employee could sue his former employer when the former employer retaliated against the employee by advising a prospective employer that the employee had previously filed an FLSA suit
• holding that an employee could sue his former employer when the former employer retaliated against the employee by advising a prospective employer that the employee had previously filed an FLSA suit
• holding that an employee could sue his former employer when the former employer retaliated against the employee by advising a pro- spective employer that the employee had previously filed an FLSA suit
• relying on \the broad purposes and clear policies of the Fair Labor Standards Act\ to conclude that the term \employee\ in that statute's anti-retaliation provision includes a former employee
• broadly interpreting the FLSA § 203(e) to include former employees, despite the FLSA amendment by Congress of the phrase “employee includes” to “employee means”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).