A Texas man struck gold last week with the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the FairLabor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) allows retaliation victims to recover emotionaldistress damages.

Santiago Pineda and Maria Pena, a married couple, leased an apartment owned byJTCH Apartments, LLC (“JTCH”). Pineda performed maintenance work in and aroundthe apartment complex for JTCH in return for compensation and discounted rent. Pinedainitially filed suit against JTCH and its owner and manager, Simona Vizireanu, for unpaidovertime under the FLSA. However, three days after Pineda served JTCH with thesummons, he and his wife received a notice to vacate their apartment for nonpayment ofrent. The amount JTCH demanded equaled the rent reductions that Pena had receivedover the period of Pineda’s employment. Having been evicted, Pena then joined Pineda’ssuit and they amended the complaint to include retaliation claims based on the back rentdemanded after the filing of the lawsuit.

At trial, the Defendants successfully moved for a judgment as a matter of law onPena’s claim, arguing that non-employee spouses are outside the protection of the FLSA.Pineda was successful on both his overtime wage claim and his retaliation claim, but U.S.District Judge Jane J. Boyle rejected his bid to have the jury hear an instruction onemotional distress damages for his retaliation claim. Judge Boyle cited an earlierappellate decision that found the remedies provisions of the FLSA and the AgeDiscrimination in Employment Act should be interpreted consistently, and used thatpremise to conclude that emotional damages were not available under the FLSA.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit overruled that determination and found that, unlikethe ADEA, the FLSA does not require exhaustion of remedies before an agency. Instead,the appellate court observed that, it follows the path of tort law by allowing immediatesuits for compensation and deterrence. “We have never said that this freestandinglanguage in the ADEA automatically applies to the FLSA, and that would make littlesense,” the court wrote. “Although the ADEA incorporates portions of the FLSA, theFLSA does not incorporate the ADEA.” The court concluded that emotional damages are“such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate” for an employee that has sufferedemotional damages as a result of employer retaliation. Unfortunately for Pena, the FifthCircuit upheld the district court’s decision that non-employee spouses are outside of theprotection of the FLSA.