Rowley v. Brigham Young Univ., 372 F. Supp. 3d 1322

Background

Dr. Rowley, a BYU faculty member, alleges a series of adverse employment actions tied to her parental/FMLA leave, including denial of tenure and termination.
She filed suit on May 1, 2018, meaning contract-based claims must accrue on or after May 1, 2012 to be timely under Utah's six-year limitation.
Complaint lists multiple discrete acts (refusals of leave extensions, hostile environment, denial of mentor, counting leave against CFS clock, removal from position, temporary contracts, denial of tenure, termination).
Defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred many contract and FMLA retaliation claims that occurred before the applicable limitations cutoffs.
Court found several early contract-based subclaims (109(a),(b),(c),(e)) time-barred and dismissed them with prejudice but allowed timely contract claims to proceed as context.
For FMLA: court applied the rule that discrete acts accrue when they occur, dismissed FMLA retaliation claims for events before May 1, 2015, found individual liability potentially available under FMLA, dismissed claims against Dr. Forste (no relevant control during timely period) but allowed claims against Dr. Jacobson to proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of contract claims	Rowley conceded some early breaches are untimely but included them to show a pattern leading to later breaches	BYU argued several contract-subclaims accrued before May 1, 2012 and are time-barred	Court dismissed sub¶109(a),(b),(c),(e) with prejudice as outside six-year period; allowed timely claims to remain for context
Timeliness of FMLA retaliation claims / continuing-violation theory	Rowley argued earlier discrete acts form a continuing pattern culminating in denial of tenure/termination within limitations, so entire pattern is actionable	Defendants said each discrete FMLA-related act triggered its own limitations clock; earlier acts before May 1, 2015 are untimely	Court rejected continuing-violation theory for these discrete acts, dismissed sub¶123(a)–(k) (events before May 1, 2015) with prejudice
Individual liability under FMLA	Rowley pleaded that individual supervisors had control over leave/tenure decisions and thus are personally liable	Forste and Jacobson argued either claims are time-barred as to them or that individuals are not "employers" under FMLA	Court held individuals can be liable under FMLA; plaintiff pleaded sufficient control allegations at motion-to-dismiss stage generally
Application to Drs. Forste and Jacobson	Rowley alleged Forste and Jacobson exercised supervisory control and retaliated	Defendants noted Forste left supervisory role in/around April 2012; Jacobson became chair Jan 2013 and controlled tenure process	Court dismissed remaining FMLA claims against Forste as time-barred (no control during timely period); allowed FMLA claims against Jacobson to proceed (sufficient allegations of control)

Key Cases Cited

Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing-violation doctrine applies to hostile work environment claims composed of repeated acts)
Barrett v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., 803 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2015) (discrete FMLA violations trigger individual limitation clocks; earlier refusals to authorize absences were time-barred)
McCully v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (N.D. Okla. 2010) (treating some failure-to-return claims as part of an ongoing retaliation pattern because termination occurred within limitations)
Hansen v. SkyWest Airlines, 844 F.3d 914 (10th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing hostile work environment from discrete acts for purposes of limitations)
Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) (claims accrue when the violative act occurs, not when consequences become most painful)
Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) (timely and untimely acts may be used as background evidence in a prima facie retaliation case)