Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Six Federal Circuits Now Allow Recovery of Emotional Distress Damages in FLSA Retaliation Cases

Written on .

In a case of first impression, this week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that workers claiming retaliation for funder the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) may recover damages for emotional distress, in addition to the other damages available under the FLSA. (Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC, 5th Cir., No. 15-10932, 12/19/16). The Fifth Circuit joined five other federal appeals courts (1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th) that previously have allowed such damages in FLSA retaliation cases.

Pined, who performed maintenance services for an apartment complex in exchange for reduced rent, sued his employer for unpaid overtime. He prevailed at trial, and the district court awarded him more than $6,600 for unpaid overtime, retaliation and liquidated damages. However, the district court did not allow the jury to consider emotional distress damages for his retaliation claim. The Fifth Circuit reversed this ruling, holding that Pineda can recover damages or his alleged emotional distress. According to the Fifth Circuit, the "expansive language" in a 1977 amendment to the FLSA "should be read to include the compensation for emotional distress" that is typically available to workers who sue for retaliatory discharge.

Emotional distress damages generally are difficult to quantify because they are determined by the jury and can be influenced by sympathy for the plaintiff or anger at the company. In Pineda's case, it is likely that the jury did not look favorably upon his employer—just three days after Pineda filed his lawsuit, the apartment complex sent Pineda and his wife a notice to vacate their apartment.

Takeaway: Lawsuits based upon wage and hour violations have become very attractive to attorneys who represent plaintiffs, and the availability of damages for emotional distress in retaliatory discharge situations will make these cases even more attractive to them. As in the case of any decision involving an employee who has engaged in protected activity, an employer should consult with experienced employment law counsel before terminating an employee who has filed a complaint for unpaid overtime.

Kathleen J. Jennings
Former Principal

Kathleen J. Jennings is a former principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. She defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

Palmyra, Syria
On Thursday, June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot review any determination of the Secretary of Homeland Securi…
thermometer
Although there is no federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) heat rule, OSHA still issues heat citations under its Gen…
Marijuana
On April 23, 2026, a final Order was issued reclassifying FDA-approved medications that contain marijuana authorized pursuant to a state an…
white house lawn
There has been a lot of confusion about the 2026 filing of EEO-1 reports, also known as Standard Form 100.  According to a notice of an EEO…
ai robot, table
In last month’s newsletter, we discussed a federal case from New York which held that an individual’s artificial intelligence-generated doc…
ai visualization
Employers are struggling with how to handle trans-sexual employees who choose to use the bathroom of their gender choice, rather than their…