Menu:

• Home
• Basis for the Lawsuit
• No Retaliation
• Damages Being Sought
• Expected Timeframe
• Attorneys' Fees
• Opt-In Process & Consent Form
• FAQ
• Case Developments
• Other Cases

Retaliation of Any Kind Is Prohibited by Federal Law

The City of Little Rock and LRPD are strictly prohibited from taking any action, directly or indirectly, relating to your job. Chief Thomas stated in his deposition, taken under oath October 10, 2008, that there would be no retaliation for those who participate in the lawsuit. Retaliation, directly or indirectly, is in violation of federal law and absolutely prohibited. In other FLSA cases many defendants, such as the City in this case, have learned very expensive lessons about attempting to retaliate against employees that seek to enforce their legal rights. If the City were to take any action detrimental to you for participating in the case, a retaliation claim will be triggered.

The FLSA has an entire section dedicated to retaliation claims and retaliation has the practical effect of turning claims for back wages into a multimillion dollar claim against the city for retaliation, permitting recovery for mental anguish and enhanced damages. Traditionally the courts have little sympathy for employers that attempt to intimidate their employees through retaliation or threats of retaliation for requesting their employer simply follow the law.

Title 29 of the United States Code §15(a)(3) and §16(b) states, in part, “It shall be unlawful…to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any compliant (sic) or instituted…any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding…Any employer who violates the provisions of section 15(a)(3) of this Act shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 15(a)(3), including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”

When asked what he had said regarding retaliation and off-duty employment, Chief Thomas testified under oath:

No Retaliation

Q. “Do you recall what you said in that regard (to retaliation)?

A. “Effectively that we weren’t going to let whatever opinions or participation we had in this affect us. We’re going to go about our business….And there’s not going to be any issues about retaliation or harassment or anything else about anybody expressing their opinion. Everybody has a right to have an opinion as to what they think is appropriate. If they choose to participate in litigation, that’s a decision they make. We’re going to conduct our business as professionals and go on.”

Off-Duty Employment

Q. “Does the City derive some benefit from that (off-duty employment)? Just the appearance of the official uniform even though they’re off duty?”

A. “The City doesn’t derive a financial (benefit) directly from off-duty employment, but I personally believe that, yes, we do…you have many situations where if the private business or industry hires an individual to be present they will frequently take care of things that might require us to dispatch a normal patrol unit to do. They also have a deterrent effect. I believe very firmly that the visibility and presence of a police vehicle, of a police officer, has a deterrent effect and may, may move them from one place to another, but it does have a bit of a deterrent effect. So, I believe that off duty employment by private employers within the context of our policy is a positive thing….as a general rule, the way our policy governs it, I believe it’s beneficial to us all.”

© 2009 Clark Mason Attorneys | Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton LLP