Randolph v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
DISCLAIMER: Our firm's past results do not predict or guarantee future success. Each case is unique. Read more
The anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA applied even if employees were not entitled to overtime but held a reasonable, good faith belief that they had been misclassified as commissions based employees.
Summary of Filed Complaint
Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson worked as Residential Resales Representatives for ADT. Though the two were promised to receive fairly lucrative compensation packages, it soon became clear that ADT was not going to pay them for their overtime hours. Randolph and Thompson complained to management about ADT’s failure to pay overtime. Unsatisfied with the company’s response, Randolph and Thompson complained to the Maryland wage and hour board. Shortly afterward, both were terminated. They claimed that their termination was illegal retaliation for their complaints.
What Happened in Court
Randolph and Thompson filed a complaint with the Maryland wage and hour board and were subsequently terminated from their positions as sales reps for ADT. The court held that that the complaint to the wage and hour board was “protected” and that their termination was unlawful retaliation in violation of the FLSA even if they were not entitled to overtime but held a reasonable, good faith belief that they had been misclassified as commissions based employees.