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

ai, human reach out
A January 20, 2026, class action filed against Eightfold AI, Inc. in California is sending shockwaves through the employer and AI community…
danger sign, skull
A second “bombshell” affecting HR pertaining to AI is a federal court ruling in New York, that a defendant’s use of AI in researching and p…
CHAT GPT
Soon after the deciding of the above-discussed case on February 17, 2026, in U.S. v. Heppner, a criminal case in the District Court for the…
avoid, wave away
There are no easy answers to the above question, but some general observations will nevertheless be made.  First, the New York district cou…
ai visualization
Perhaps the starting point is to look at the type of AI platforms generally available.  At a recent conference about AI use for HR, speaker…
june 2026 legal immigration webinar promo graphic
The webinar will cover how to deal with a worksite enforcement action and various types of immigration enforcement activities. The webinar…