980 F.3d 1334
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Olson, sole proprietor of Pacific Disability Management, contracted with BPA as a Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator beginning in 2010.
- In March 2014 Olson, experiencing anxiety, requested accommodations and invoked FMLA leave through MBO Partners (a payroll/service intermediary); she asked MBO to notify BPA only with her consent.
- BPA did not provide FMLA notice to Olson, suspended her network access, explored collateral reassignment of duties, paid for some billed telework, and later offered a limited telework/trial work arrangement in June 2014 which Olson declined and then ceased working for BPA.
- Olson filed an EEO complaint in May 2014 and filed this FMLA suit on March 13, 2017.
- The district court found BPA did not act willfully under the McLaughlin standard, applied the two-year statute of limitations, and entered judgment for BPA; Olson appeals the notice/interference and willfulness findings.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court’s factual finding of no willfulness was not clearly erroneous and thus Olson’s claim was time-barred.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BPA's failure to give FMLA notice interfered with Olson's rights | Olson: lack of notice prejudiced her ability to structure leave and worsened her anxiety, amounting to interference | BPA: admits no notice but contends failure was not prejudicial and did not chill rights | Court: did not need to resolve interference; disposition rests on willfulness/statute of limitations |
| Whether BPA's conduct was "willful" to trigger 3‑year SOL | Olson: BPA knew she was on leave, failed to notify, and sought legal advice yet did not comply — shows knowledge/reckless disregard | BPA: consulted legal dept, tried to reinstate, paid for worked hours, and there was a bona fide joint‑employment dispute over primacy | Court: applied McLaughlin (knowledge or reckless disregard) and found no willfulness; two‑year SOL applies; judgment affirmed |
| Equitable tolling / procedural forfeiture | Olson: alternatively sought equitable tolling | BPA: argues issue forfeited because not raised below | Court: equitable tolling argument forfeited on appeal for failure to present in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (Supreme Court definition of "willful" = knowledge or reckless disregard)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (employer notice violations require proof of prejudice to obtain relief)
- Bachelder v. America West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (interference defined as conduct that chills exercise of FMLA rights)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (employer duty to inform employees of FMLA entitlements)
- Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004) (multi‑factor joint‑employer analysis)