11-08-2017
Jose Arnulfo Arias was an undocumented laborer working on a dairy farm in California. He brought a lawsuit against his employer under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA), protesting the failure to give him overtime pay as well as rest and meal periods. The employer’s lawyer, Anthony Raimondo, retaliated by calling the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on several occasions to report Mr. Arias’ illegal status. The attorney arranged for ICE to pick Mr. Arias up at his scheduled deposition and have him deported. Aware of Mr. Raimondo’s report, Mr. Arias settled the lawsuit so that he could stay in the country.
Mr. Arias sued Mr. Raimondo alleging retaliation under the FLSA. Mr. Raimondo’s defense was that he was never Mr. Arias’ employer and therefore could not be liable under the FLSA.
The 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mr. Raimondo. FLSA’s language prohibits retaliation by anyone and is not limited to employers. Wage and hour claims are limited to employers by the FLSA’s language, which is different than the retaliation language. The retaliation language of the statute states “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” The court noted that the anti-retaliation provision was intended to allow workers to pursue their rights and that purpose was not served if it was limited strictly to the employer.