Can the DOL Seek Punitive Damages for FLSA Retaliation? A Kentucky Case May Shape the Answer

Quick Hits

• In Sonderling v. Ikes Artisan Pizza LLC, the DOL argued that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision grants courts broad authority to award punitive damages against employers.
• The case implicates an unresolved circuit split and could significantly increase financial exposure under the FLSA retaliation.

Background

The Ikes Artisan Pizza case centers on a complaint filed by the DOL in 2022 alleging that the employer retaliated against an employee for communicating with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet regarding her wages. In 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, which set the case on the path to trial. This also put a novel issue—whether courts have authority under the FLSA to award punitive damages against employers that retaliate against workers for exercising rights under the FLSA—squarely before the district court.

The DOL’s Argument: Broad Remedial Authority

In a brief filed on April 27, 2026, the DOL argued that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision provides courts with broad authority to determine what remedies are appropriate when employees face retaliation for asserting rights under the FLSA. The DOL’s argument is premised on statutory language providing that employers can be held liable for “such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate[.]” According to the DOL, this language demonstrates that the U.S. Congress intended to give courts flexibility with remedies as necessary to deter retaliation. The DOL also claimed its position was consistent with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ 1990 decision in Travis v. Gary Community Mental Health Center Inc. in which the Seventh Circuit held that this language allowed for punitive damages in FLSA retaliation cases.

The Employer’s Response: Remedies Are Compensatory, Not Punitive

Ikes Artisan Pizza took a contrary position. It argued that the FLSA’s structure and existing case law demonstrate that punitive damages are not authorized under the FLSA. In particular, Ikes Artisan Pizza pointed out that the FLSA’s remedies provision does not specifically mention punitive damages and, as a policy matter, the FLSA is focused on compensating employees rather than punishing employers. In doing so, Ikes Artisan Pizza urged the district court to limit recovery to the types of remedies expressly listed in the FLSA or to ones substantially similar to them. It argued this would be consistent with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2000 decision in Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts Inc., which held that the FLSA’s specified remedies are compensatory in nature. According to Ikes Artisan Pizza, this demonstrates that Congress did not intend to authorize punitive damages under the FLSA.

What This Means for Employers

The Sonderling v. Ikes Artisan Pizza LLC case now sits at the center of an unresolved circuit split. The outcome could have consequences for how employers assess financial risk in FLSA retaliation matters, especially in Kentucky, if not elsewhere. If the district court sides with the DOL, the potential exposure in FLSA retaliation cases would grow significantly. Employers may want to ensure their organization has robust anti-retaliation policies, train managers to recognize protected activity under the FLSA, and respond promptly and consistently when employees raise wage-related concerns. Employers may also want to document employment decisions thoroughly when an adverse action is being considered against an employee who has recently complained about wage-related concerns.

Ogletree Deakins’ Ohio offices, Employment Law Practice Group, Hospitality Industry Group, and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employment Law, Hospitality, Kentucky, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts