Lambert

*1001 Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge RYMER.

This case presents a question of considerable importance to the workers in this circuit who rely on the protections afforded by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”). We must resolve whether the anti-retaliation provision of that Act protects employees who complain to their employers about wage and hour violations. Based on the guiding purpose and design of the FLSA and the language of the statute, we join six other circuits and hold that complaints made to employers are within the ambit of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation clause. Because we reject the other arguments that the defendants have raised on appeal, we affirm the decision of the district court.

I.

Facts and Procedural History

The plaintiffs in this action are six former ticket sales agents of the Seattle SuperSonics, a National Basketball Association team. As “account executives” for the Sonics, the plaintiffs were responsible for selling season tickets, multi-game packages, and group-ticket packages. They also were responsible for staffing a season ticket information booth at Sonics basketball games. Beginning in 1991,…

with whom FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment in part:

While the majority’s view that 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3) protects employees who complain to an employer about overtime may well modernize the FLSA, I believe this is for Congress-not the courts-to do. And I continue to agree with the panel opinion, and the Second Circuit, that this interpretation is an option the plain language of § 215(a)(3) makes unavailable. Section 215(a)(3) says that it is unlawful to discharge an employee because he or she “has filed any complaint.” It does not say “has complained to the employer” or “has made any complaint to the employer.”

Washington law does say that. It prohibits an employer from discharging an employee who “has made any complaint to his employer.” Wash. Rev.Code § 49.46.100(2).

If the federal statute and the state statute mean the same thing, as the court has now held, then words mean anything we say they do. 3 I therefore dissent for the reasons set forth in Parts II, III and IV of the panel opinion, authored by Judge Brunetti, which I adopt:

. Nor does it matter whether or not Congress meant to include grievances "filed” with…