In Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., No. 13-15292 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2015), plaintiff, who had served as Manager/Director of Human Resources for the defendant company, was fired after she complained to her superiors in numerous periodic reports that the company was not in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Plaintiff brought an action under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, ruling that plaintiff failed to satisfy the so-called “Manager Rule,” adopted by the First, Fifth and Tenth Circuits, which requires a manager to show that she had stepped outside her managerial role of representing the company in order to state a FLSA retaliation claim.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating that it declined to adopt any bright-line rule to apply when considering whether a manager had made actionable complaints within the meaning of the FLSA.  Instead, the court held that the issue of whether a manager has engaged in protected conduct under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision must be resolved as a matter of factual analysis on a case-by-case basis.  The court reasoned that an employee’s status as a “manager” is but one consideration and is not entirely binary, stating that the result may be different for a first-level manager overseeing day-to-day operations versus a high-level manager responsible for ensuring the company’s FLSA compliance.  Here, because FLSA compliance was not part of plaintiff’s job responsibilities, a reasonable jury could find that her reports to her superiors were actionable complaints protected under the FLSA notwithstanding her position as a “manager” within the company.