U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 8— FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

29 U.S.C. § 215

Prohibited acts; prima facie evidence

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) After the expiration of one hundred and twenty days from June 25, 1938, it shall be unlawful for any person—(1) to transport, offer for transportation, ship, deliver, or sell in commerce, or to ship, deliver, or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in commerce is intended, any goods in the production of which any employee was employed in violation of section 206 or section 207 of this title, or in violation of any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 214 of this title; except that no provision of this chapter shall impose any liability upon any common carrier for the transportation in commerce in the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this chapter shall excuse any common carrier from its obligation to accept any goods for transportation; and except that any such transportation, offer, shipment, delivery, or sale of such goods by a purchaser who acquired them in good faith in reliance on written assurance from the producer that the goods were produced in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, and who acquired such goods for value without notice of any such violation, shall not be deemed unlawful;(2) to violate any of the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title, or any of the provisions of any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 214 of this title;(3) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee;(4) to violate any of the provisions of section 212 of this title;(5) to violate any of the provisions of section 211(c) of this title, or any regulation or order made or continued in effect under the provisions of section 211(d) of this title, or to make any statement, report, or record filed or kept pursuant to the provisions of such section or of any regulation or order thereunder, knowing such statement, report, or record to be false in a material respect; and(6) to violate any of the provisions of section 218d of this title.(b) For the purposes of subsection (a)(1) proof that any employee was employed in any place of employment where goods shipped or sold in commerce were produced, within ninety days prior to the removal of the goods from such place of employment, shall be prima facie evidence that such employee was engaged in the production of such goods.(June 25, 1938, ch. 676, § 15, 52 Stat. 1068; Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 736, § 13, 63 Stat. 919; 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 6, §§ 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. 117–328, div. KK, § 102(b)(1), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 6095.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 117–328 added par. (6).

1949—Subsec. (a)(1). Act Oct. 26, 1949, § 13(a), inserted provision protecting purchaser in good faith in sale of goods produced in violation of this chapter.

Subsec. (a)(5). Act Oct. 26, 1949, § 13(b), inserted “or any regulation or order made or continued in effect under the provisions of section 211(d) of this title” after “211(c) of this title”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2022 Amendment

Pub. L. 117–328, div. KK, § 103(b), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 6096, provided that: “The amendments made by section 102(b) [amending this section and section 216 of this title] shall take effect on the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 2022].”

Effective Date of 1949 Amendment

Amendment by act Oct. 26, 1949, effective ninety days after Oct. 26, 1949, see section 16(a) of act Oct. 26, 1949, set out as a note under section 202 of this title.

Liability of Public Agency for Discrimination Against Employee for Assertion of Coverage

Pub. L. 99–150, § 8, Nov. 13, 1985, 99 Stat. 791, provided that: “A public agency which is a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency and which discriminates or has discriminated against an employee with respect to the employee’s wages or other terms or conditions of employment because on or after February 19, 1985, the employee asserted coverage under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [29 U.S.C. 207] shall be held to have violated section 15(a)(3) of such Act [29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)]. The protection against discrimination afforded by the preceding sentence shall be available after August 1, 1986, only for an employee who takes an action described in section 15(a)(3) of such Act.”

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Labor, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,463 cases (383 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Avila v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 758 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Avila v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 758 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “Avila then brought this action, claiming that he was fired in retaliation for testifying, in violation of the FLSA anti- retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). The evidence at trial was that the only officers disciplined for not claiming overtime were those who testified…”
Alla Rosenfield v. Globaltranz Enter., 811 F.3d 282 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 15× “” The panel held that a complaining employee’s position is an important part of the “context” that the fact- finder must consider, but the panel declined to formulate or adopt a special bright-line rule to apply when considering whether a manager has “filed any complaint” within…”
Peter Ball v. Memphis Bar-B-Q Co., Inc., Sec'y of Labor, Amicus Curiae, 228 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2000). · cites it 11× “Ball commenced this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that his discharge was retaliatory in that he was “about to testify” in a “proceeding under or related to” that Act, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). The district court granted Memphis Bar-B-Q’s…”
Greathouse v. JHS Sec. Inc., 784 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “1993), concerning what constitutes “fil[ing a] complaint” under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). Section 215(a)(3) makes it unlawful “to discharge or in any other manner , discriminate against any employee because…”
Brian Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc., 754 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 14× “§ 2087(a) (Consumer Product Safety Act); 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a) (Fair Labor Standards Act); id.”
Dellinger v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 649 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 10× “OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Natalie Dellinger commenced this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") against Science Applications International Corporation which, she alleges, retaliated against her, in violation of the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision,…”
Edwards v. AH Cornell & Son, Inc., 610 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). Section 510 of ERISA, in contrast, extends only to persons that have "given information or [] testified" in an *225 "inquiry or proceeding.”
Middleton v. Hartman, 45 P.3d 721 (Colo. 2002). · cites it 7× “(2001), apply to a claim against state employees sued in their individual capacities for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215 (1994). [1] We hold that state employees do not enjoy sovereign immunity when sued in their individual capacities for…”
Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “Darveau then amended his complaint in this case to allege that Detecon’s lawsuit constituted an illegal retaliatory action under 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3) (2000) of the FLSA.”
Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “Following their discharge, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that they had been fired in retaliation for their complaints about the defendants’ failure to comply with federal overtime requirements, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3), and in violation of the…”
Avis K. Hornsby-Culpepper v. R. David Ware, 906 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 206 (d)(1) ; and (3) retaliation by terminating her employment and not selecting her for an Associate Judge position, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, as incorporated into the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). 1 On appeal, she argues that the…”
Lori G. McKenzie v. Renberg's Inc., & Robert Renberg, 94 F.3d 1478 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “, and its president, Robert Renberg (collectively “defendants”), asserting claims for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3), and wrongful discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy.”
Show all 1,463 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 215(a) — 6 cases
Walling v. Mut. Wholesale Food & Supply Co., 141 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1944).
Tilbury v. Rogers, 123 F. Supp. 109 (W.D. La. 1954).
Common Cause v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 333 F. Supp. 803 (D.D.C. 1971).
Shultz v. Deane-Hill Country Club, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 272 (E.D. Tenn. 1969).
Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 800 (M.D. Ga. 1957).
— 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(2) — 3 cases
Marshall v. Morse Operations, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 604 (S.D. Fla. 1981).
Love v. Temple Univ.—of Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ., 366 F. Supp. 835 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Wireless Boys, LLC (N.D. Ohio 2023).
— 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) — 18 cases
Campusano v. Lusitano Constr. LLC, 56 A.3d 303 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012).
Quiles v. Parent, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
Keith D. Bailey v. Usx Corp., 850 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1988).
Prosser v. Thiele Kaolin Co., 135 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (M.D. Ga. 2015).
Love v. Temple Univ.—of Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ., 366 F. Supp. 835 (E.D. Pa. 1973).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.