This Note argues that it is necessary to find a balance between the liberal and strict approaches when interpreting the anti-retaliatory provision of the FLSA. Part I of this Note provides background on the FLSA, its retaliatory provision, and a proposed amendment to the retaliatory provision currently before the Senate and House of Representatives. Part II addresses the various arguments the courts of appeals consider to arrive at their conclusion on how to interpret § 215(a)(3), including abiding by the plain language, examining the purpose of the Act, and comparing it to similar anti-retaliation provisions. Though the language is unambiguous, Part III argues that the policy and purpose of § 215(a)(3) requires courts to look past its clear language. However, this Note concludes that it would be improper for courts to protect informally made oral complaints from retaliation. As a matter of best practice, an employee should be required to put his complaint in writing in order to be covered by § 215(a)(3).