Olukayode v. UnitedHealth Group

Background

Oluro Olukayode brought a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against UnitedHealth Group, Optum, Inc., and The Advisory Board Company. He claimed that the defendants improperly classified him and other consultants as independent contractors and failed to pay overtime for work exceeding 40 hours per week.

The court initially denied Olukayode’s motion for conditional certification without prejudice. It later granted his renewed motion in part and denied it in part, limiting the conditionally certified group to individuals who had signed contracts to provide specified services as independent contractors before September 15, 2018. The defendants challenged that ruling. Judge David S. Doty, the district judge, overruled the challenge on January 29, 2020, and directed the parties to proceed with notice to potential participants.

Motion for Equitable Tolling

Olukayode asked the court to apply equitable tolling, a limited exception that can extend a statute of limitations when a person was prevented from filing on time by circumstances that were not fair. He sought tolling for the period between October 28, 2019, and January 29, 2020, while the conditional-certification ruling was being challenged.

Under the FLSA, a potential participant who is not named in the complaint generally joins the case when that person files written consent. The limitations period continues to run until that consent is filed. Olukayode argued that potential participants were unaware of their rights and could not join before notice was sent. The defendants argued that neither Olukayode nor the other potential participants had shown diligent efforts to protect their rights or extraordinary circumstances preventing timely participation.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court explained that the people whose claims might be affected were the potential participants, not Olukayode himself. It found that Olukayode’s motion made only a passing reference to those individuals’ diligence. He did not show that any particular potential participant had diligently pursued a claim, or that the limitations period had actually expired in a way that affected a potential participant’s claim.

The court therefore held that Olukayode had not met his burden to justify equitable tolling at that time. It did not reach whether extraordinary circumstances had prevented potential participants from joining the action. The court denied without prejudice Olukayode’s Motion for Equitable Tolling, allowing the issue to be raised again if equitable tolling later applied to a particular participant.