Olofsson v. Mission Linen Supply
2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1263, 211 Cal.App.4th 1236, 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 446 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Equitable estoppel prevents an employer from asserting an employee's ineligibility for family leave if the employer's conduct or silence, when there was a duty to speak, intentionally or foreseeably misled the employee, who was ignorant of the true facts and relied on that conduct to their detriment.
Facts:
- In April 2004, Lars Olofsson visited his parents in Sweden and secured time off by requesting permission from plant manager Jack Anderson, Sr. and completing a form.
- During his April visit, Olofsson observed his mother experiencing significant back pain; she later decided to have surgery, scheduled for July 5, and asked Olofsson to care for her.
- On June 14, Olofsson informed Anderson that he needed seven weeks off, starting July 12, to care for his mother after her surgery.
- Between June 15 and June 18, Olofsson obtained family leave forms from payroll clerk Ruth Clark, returned them on June 21, and marked himself eligible, but Clark whited out his mark and informed him that only HR could approve the leave, to which Olofsson responded he was 'going anyway.'
- Starting June 21, area manager Dane Hart instructed Olofsson to train relief driver Kevin Truby to take over Olofsson’s route in his absence.
- On June 30, Olofsson delivered a letter from his mother’s doctor to Clark, which lacked official letterhead and raised concerns about its legitimacy.
- On July 2, Clark informed Olofsson the doctor's letter was insufficient and gave him a government certification form, which Olofsson had his mother's doctor complete and faxed to HR on July 9.
- On July 9 at 11:00 a.m., area manager Walter Rowley informed Olofsson his family leave request was denied because he did not meet the 1,250-hour requirement, and Olofsson left for Sweden on July 10.
Procedural Posture:
- Lars Olofsson sued Mission Linen Supply for wrongful termination, alleging violations of public policy and that Mission Linen was equitably estopped from asserting his ineligibility for family leave.
- Olofsson successfully moved the trial court to bifurcate the equitable estoppel issue for a court trial, to be heard before any jury trial on remaining issues.
- The trial court ruled against Olofsson on the equitable estoppel issue and entered judgment in favor of Mission Linen Supply.
- Olofsson appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can an employer be equitably estopped from denying an employee’s family leave request when the employee claims the employer misrepresented approval by deed or remained silent when it had a duty to speak, leading the employee to believe the leave was approved and to act upon that belief?
Opinions:
Majority - REARDON, Acting P. J.
No, an employer is not equitably estopped from denying an employee's family leave request because the trial court's findings that Mission Linen did not misrepresent approval by deed nor remain silent when it had a duty to speak are supported by substantial evidence. To establish equitable estoppel, the employee must show that Mission Linen (1) was apprised of the facts, (2) intended for its conduct to be relied upon (or acted in a way that Olofsson had a right to believe it was so intended), (3) Olofsson was ignorant of the true facts, and (4) Olofsson relied on the conduct to his injury. The court found no misrepresentation by deed, noting that instructions to train a relief driver were given 'in the event the leave was approved,' and that Clark explicitly told Olofsson that only HR could approve the leave and even whited out his self-declared eligibility. These communications, along with the fact that Olofsson stated he would go to Sweden regardless of approval, indicated a lack of intent to mislead by the employer and a lack of ignorance of the true facts by the employee. Furthermore, Mission Linen did not remain silent; it responded to Olofsson's request by requiring forms and medical certification, and by informing him that approval depended on HR. The CFRA regulations require an employer to 'respond' within 10 days, not necessarily to approve or deny, especially if crucial information like medical certification is still pending. The court distinguished this case from Kosakow because Mission Linen had posted the required notices and engaged in ongoing communication about the leave application requirements, thus fulfilling its duty to speak.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for proving equitable estoppel, particularly against employers in the context of family leave laws. It clarifies that merely training a replacement or having a delayed final denial, absent intent to mislead or complete silence when a clear duty to speak exists, is insufficient for estoppel. The decision underscores that employees have constructive notice of eligibility requirements through posted notices and that an employer's ongoing communication regarding an application, even if not an immediate approval or denial, can satisfy the 'duty to speak' requirement.
