California Court Clarifies Employer Obligations In Responding To FMLA And CFRA Leave Requests

In Olofsson v. Mission Linen Supply, the plaintiff alleged that his employer's misrepresentation and failure to act on his requested family leave caused him to take the leave without approval, resulting in his termination from the company. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision for the company, because the company did not misrepresent to the plaintiff that it had approved his request for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and because the company did respond to the plaintiff's request, even if the speed of its ultimate decision was unfortunately slow.

Facts

On June 14, 2004, Olofsson requested seven weeks of unpaid FMLA and CFRA leave so he could care for his mother in connection with her surgery in Sweden. The company did not approve the leave request. When Olofsson took the time off anyway, the company terminated his employment. Olofsson then sued for retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Between the time Olofsson requested the leave and the time the company denied it, Olofsson had several conversations with supervisors and HR representatives about the leave. Initially, the immediate supervisor told Olofsson to complete a leave request form, which the company provided. The form included a box indicating whether the leave was employer approved. A week later, Olofsson submitted the form, checking the "employer approved" box, even though the leave had not yet been approved. The payroll clerk who accepted the form told Olofsson the leave was not yet approved and corrected the checkbox, in front of Olofsson.

The company also requested that Olofsson submit a letter from his mother's doctor to corroborate the surgery. Nine days later, when Olofsson submitted a letter that was not written on doctor letterhead, the company asked for official medical forms. Olofsson finally submitted signed copies one week later. At that point, the company informed Olofsson that it denied his request for leave because he had not worked the requisite 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months to be eligible for CFRA and FMLA leave. Olofsson took the leave anyway, leading the company to terminate his employment.

The Trial Court's Decision

In a bifurcated trial on an estoppel issue, Olofsson argued that he had relied on company representations that his leave would be granted and that his mother had planned her surgery accordingly. This reliance, Olofsson alleged, should have estopped the company from using the 1,250-hour requirement as a basis for its denial. As a result, he argued, the company could not lawfully deny his leave and could not terminate his employment for taking protected leave. Olofsson also alleged that the company had breached a duty to respond under the CFRA, whether affirmatively or negatively, within 10 days of his request. The trial court disagreed with Olofsson and held that the company could establish that it had never approved the leave.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It concluded that Olofsson never actually received any communication from the company approving his leave. Instead, his leave request resulted in a dialogue during which the company requested additional information necessary to consider the request. Moreover, when Olofsson checked the box on the leave request form indicating management approval, the payroll clerk explicitly erased it, indicating that the request was not approved. The Court of Appeal agreed that Olofsson's reliance on the company's alleged representations was not reasonable.

The Court of Appeal also determined that the CFRA does not require an employer to affirm or deny a leave request within 10 days. Rather, the CFRA required that the company "respond to" the request within that time frame. Here, the company did respond to Olofsson by addressing his request and seeking additional information from him.

Although the Court of Appeal sided with the company, it was not impressed that the company took several weeks to calculate how many hours Olofsson had worked in the preceding 12 months, or that the company took so long to decide whether to approve the leave. The court observed that the employer could avoid such litigation with a more meticulous leave request process. These observations aside, the court did agree that the company's decision to deny the requested leave was not unlawful or unfair.

What Oloffson Means for Employers

This holding helps clarify an employer's obligations under the FMLA and the CFRA when responding to employee leave requests. The decision underscores that employers may dismiss employees for taking unauthorized leave, and need not grant or deny a leave request within 10 days of receiving it, so long as they engage the employee in a dialogue regarding the request within that time frame.

The case also sounds cautionary notes for employers. The Court of Appeal observed that the company's leave policies were not coordinated, not well-articulated, and not communicated effectively to Olofsson and his supervisors. Olofsson's leave request passed through the hands of numerous people, including at least two supervisors and the payroll clerk, slowing the process down, and contributing to the delay and confusion. Ultimately, the company might have avoided this litigation with clearer, more streamlined processes to handle leave requests. Employers should take this opportunity to revisit their own leave policies, practices, and training to minimize risks of provoking litigation.