Olofsson

Olofsson v. Mission Linen Supply

Good Law
150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 446·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1263·211 Cal. App. 4th 1236
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 13, 2012No. A131471California4,133 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reardon, J.

*1240 Opinion

Lars Olofsson appeals from the judgment entered in favor of respondent Mission Linen Supply (Mission Linen) after the court, in a bifurcated trial of his wrongful termination case, ruled against him. on the issue of equitable estoppel. The events in question take place in the context of the employee’s request for family leave under the federal and state family leave laws. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the employer (1) did not misrepresent by deed that the employee’s leave had been approved and (2) was not silent when it had a duty to speak under the applicable regulations. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Background

California’s Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA) 1 and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) 2 compel an employer of Mission Linen’s size to grant a leave of absence to an employee, and preserve that employee’s right to continued employment, if the employee worked 1,250 hours in the year preceding the leave and the leave is for a recognized reason, such as to care for a family member who has a serious health condition. (Gov. Code, § 12945.2,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.