In Caudle v. Hard Drive Express, 2024 WL 464078 (Feb. 7, 2024), Caudle sued claiming he was fired in retaliation for threatening to report unlawful employment practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer.  In holding that Caudle had not engaged in a protected act under the FLSA or MWPA the trial found that a text exchange between Caudle and his supervisor solely concerned the employer’s vacation policy. Since vacation is not covered by either the FLSA or the MPWA, the court held complaints about vacation were not “protected acts” under either law. The Sixth Circuit reversed, as Caudle argued he had also complained to his employer about unpaid work and unreimbursed expenses. The Sixth Circuit ruled that threats and internal complaints constitute protected acts when they concern subject matters protected by the FLSA. The Sixth Circuit found a genuine question of fact regarding the scope of the subject of the text exchange, coupled with an affidavit from Caudle attesting to uncompensated time and expenses was sufficient to overcome summary judgment.