Olinger v. Renville County

Background

Douglas C. Olinger worked for Renville County Hospital & Clinics beginning in November 2000. In 2014, he became the Hospital’s housekeeping and laundry supervisor. Before his September 2015-to-February 2016 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, he testified that he spent about half his time supervising and half performing housekeeping work.

After returning from that leave, Olinger said he no longer managed staff, scheduled employees, handled timecards, implemented policies or training, or performed budgeting work. He described himself as spending 75% to nearly all of his time doing housekeeping work. His hours, salary, and benefits remained the same. The Hospital terminated his employment on April 4, 2016, describing the action as an indefinite and permanent layoff based on efficiencies from moving to a new building and anticipated reimbursement cuts.

Olinger also relied on a September 2015 conversation with Renville County Administrator Sara Folstad. He asked what could be done if the Hospital did not hire the most qualified person for a maintenance engineer position. Folstad told him to follow the Hospital’s grievance policy. Olinger acknowledged that he did not report a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law during that conversation.

Legal standards

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed Olinger’s evidence as true and drew reasonable inferences in his favor while deciding the motion.

The FMLA generally gives an employee returning from leave the right to the same position or an equivalent position, including substantially similar duties, responsibilities, authority, pay, benefits, and working conditions. The court analyzed Olinger’s claim about his post-leave position as an FMLA entitlement claim. His termination claim was an FMLA discrimination claim, which required evidence that his use of FMLA rights played a part in the termination.

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act protects an employee who reports a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of law. The court applied the burden-shifting method used for retaliation claims when there is no direct evidence of retaliation.

FMLA restoration claim

The court granted summary judgment against Olinger’s claim that the Hospital failed to restore him to the same or an equivalent position after FMLA leave. The court acknowledged Olinger’s testimony about the shift toward housekeeping work but held that the duties were not materially different as a matter of law.

The court emphasized that Olinger’s title, hours, salary, and benefits stayed the same; he was not assigned new tasks; housekeeping work had been a significant part of his earlier position; and the evidence did not establish that housekeeping work had been limited to exactly half of his time before leave. Olinger’s estimates that he performed housekeeping work 75% to 100% of the time after leave were indefinite. He also did not identify negative consequences such as reduced advancement opportunities or another tangible adverse effect.

The court separately held that, even if the post-leave duties had been materially different, the Hospital showed that the changes would have occurred regardless of Olinger’s FMLA leave. During his leave, the Hospital moved to a new building, implemented a block-scheduling system that eliminated the need for Olinger to perform a four-week scheduling rotation, approved a new budget, and installed a telephone system managed with help from an outside vendor. Olinger did not respond to this evidence by explaining why those responsibilities would have remained his.

FMLA termination claim

The court granted summary judgment against Olinger’s FMLA discrimination claim based on his termination. The parties did not dispute that taking the September 2015-to-February 2016 leave was protected activity or that termination was an adverse employment action. The dispute was whether the evidence showed a causal connection between the leave and the termination.

Olinger relied in part on testimony that Blad had said he intended to “get rid of” Olinger. The court held that this statement did not connect Blad’s alleged motive to Olinger’s FMLA leave. The statement did not mention the FMLA, and the witnesses attributed or understood other possible reasons for it. The court also noted that the statement was made before Olinger’s September 2015 leave, and Olinger identified no evidence that Blad knew at that time that Olinger would take that leave. The timing of the termination, more than six months after the employer knew of the planned leave, was also insufficient by itself to show causation.

Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim

The court granted summary judgment against Olinger’s Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim. The court held that Olinger did not engage in protected conduct because he did not report a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of law.

Olinger’s conversation with Folstad concerned whether the Hospital might fail to hire the most qualified person and whether it might reject him for some unknown reason. Olinger admitted that he did not report that the Hospital was failing to follow its stated hiring procedure. The court also rejected his argument that a possible violation of an internal hiring policy amounted to a legal violation. Olinger identified no contract, source of fiduciary duty, or law under which the Hospital’s hiring policies had been adopted.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The court further ordered that the action was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and directed that judgment be entered.