Seaboard Oil Co. v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that “a clear articulation of facts indicative of illegality[] is required for an oral complaint to support a claim of FLSA retaliation”
• declining to hold that an explicit invocation of statutory rights is necessary in FLSA anti-retaliation case
• finding complaint not protected activity under FLSA’s retaliation provision because “it made a claim of disability-based discrimination” and “did not allege a violation of” FLSA
• docking wages to which an employee is entitled and failing to pay overtime to which an employee is entitled are adverse employment actions
• finding that when a worker put her employer “on notice only that [she] believed she had not been paid what her employer had promised . . . [she] did not thereby assert a violation of the FLSA, or even suggest that she might be doing so”
• dismissing plaintiff's FLSA retaliation claim where plaintiff did not allege that her oral complaints “invoked the FLSA” or accused employer of illegality and finding that, when viewed in context, plaintiff's complaints “concerned non-FLSA matters.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).