Alan C. Olson & Associates

02/27/2026

https://employee-advocates.com/whistle-blower-protection-for-healthcare-employees-under-the-false-claims-act/

Alleging a viable FCA claim involves an employer’s knowing and material fraud against the government in violation of specific Medicare and Medicaid codes.

01/26/2026

Denied Disability Benefits for Long COVID

Employees across the country are increasingly applying for short and long term disability benefits related to long COVID, also known as post-COVID syndrome, which causes debilitating health problems that can last months and years after an initial COVID-19 infection.

Recent data reveals that there has been a surge in permanent disability claims for long COVID and national projections are that over 39 million Americans will be dealing with long COVID by the close of 2025 contributing to a mass disability event.

Hurdles to Obtaining Disability Benefits

Despite CDC data showing long Covid results in functional limitations qualifying as a disability effecting 1 in 10 adults, the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria results in substantial hurdles when long COVID sufferers try to obtain disability benefits:

- Symptoms can vary and be unpredictable making it hard to demonstrate consistent impairment
- Long COVID can exacerbate preexisting conditions complicating claims further
- Because of systemic barriers, the process often requires some legal teeth to get results

Claimants are well advised to hire an experienced disability attorney to help them navigate the process which often includes appealing a denied claim requiring submission of extensive medical documentation and proof of how symptoms impact daily functioning.

Long COVID from the Perspective of Sufferers

Long COVID sufferers often face significant impairment in physical, cognitive, and mental health. The most debilitating aspects are severe fatigue; brain fog affecting memory and concentration; neurological symptoms including headaches and dizziness; ongoing respiratory issues; general musculoskeletal pain and pain with exertion; and worsening of symptoms with even minor physical or mental effort. Symptoms can trigger secondary issues such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.

The debilitating effects of long COVID profoundly impact an employee’s ability to work or perform job duties. Workers often experience substantial productivity loss and impaired performance with some unable to return to work at all, whether exiting voluntarily or being terminated from their job due to performance or attendance issues.

Seek the Help of an Experienced Disability Claims Attorney

Overall, long COVID affects up to 24 percent of Americans with over 6 million facing significant activity limitations including the ability to perform the duties of their job making disability benefits essential. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) recognizes long COVID as a disability eligible for benefits or accommodations in the workplace, the prevalence of long COVID is on the rise and systemic disarray in claims processing persists with ongoing pushback from employers and insurers. It is important to seek the help of an experienced employment law attorney who not only specializes in disability benefit denials, but also employment discrimination as it is not uncommon for sufferers to experience harassment or retaliation such as job termination. Contact the employment law attorneys of Alan C. Olson & Associates for help today. Visit our Getmyltdbenefit.com website for more information regarding long term disability claims.

01/19/2026

Qui Tam Whistleblower Exposes Fraud Under False Claims Act

Marking one of the most aggressive actions against Medicare Advantage fraud, the Department of Justice recently (May 2025) intervened and unsealed a civil complaint that reveals a vast Medicare kickback scheme that prioritized company profits over subscriber needs. The case, originally filed under the false claims act by a former eHealth employee (whistleblower), alleges that a group of insurers paid hundreds of millions of dollars (kickbacks) to incentivize brokers to steer enrollments into their plans regardless of their suitability to the member. A particularly damning aspect of the case involves two of the insurers conspiring with brokers to discriminate against disabled enrollees perceived as less profitable, in violation of the ADA and Medicare Advantage anti-discrimination rules. Not only were ethical standards allegedly breached, but the MA enrollment certifications false, justifying False Claims Act penalties. The case is just heating up, with potential damages into the billions. The whistle blower could receive 15 to 30 percent of the recoveries.

What are Qui Tam Lawsuits?

Qui tam lawsuits allow private individuals (whistleblowers or “relators”) to sue on behalf of the government for fraud against federal programs. A qui tam lawsuit is a legal action filed under the False Claims Act (FCA) where a whistleblower sues a person or entity for defrauding the government in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or federal contracts. Consequently, the whistleblower, often an employee, former employee, contractor or insider privy to fraudulent activities, may be awarded a portion of recovered funds.

What Types of Fraud are Involved in Qui Tam Cases?

Common qui tam cases include billing the government for services or goods not provided; overcharges for products and services; submitting false certifications for compliance with federal regulations; and fraud in healthcare (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid fraud), defense contracts, or government grants.

What is the False Claims Act (FCA)?

The False Claims Act is a federal law (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) that imposes liability on individuals or entities who defraud government programs. It allows whistleblowers to file qui tam lawsuits and provides protections against retaliation for reporting fraud.

- Although most qui tam cases involve federal programs under the FCA, many states also have their own false claims laws, allowing whistleblowers to file qui tam suits for fraud against state governments (e.g., Medicaid fraud in state programs).

After investigating a qui tam case, the government may intervene based on the evidence’s strength, the case’s complexity, and potential recovery. The government intervenes in about 20–25% of cases. A whistleblower typically receives 15–25% of recovered amounts if the government intervenes, or 25–30% if the whistleblower and their attorney pursue the case independently without government intervention.

Protections for Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers work with a qui tam attorney to file a claim. The name of the whistleblower is disclosed to the court and government, but the case is filed under seal, keeping the identity of the whistleblower confidential initially, with public disclosure occurring if the case proceeds. Whistleblowers are protected against retaliation (e.g., firing, demotion, or harassment) for reporting fraud and may seek remedies including reinstatement, back pay, and other damages if they are subject to retaliation under the FCA.

Whistleblower First to File Rule

Because there may be more than one individual privy to fraud, the FCA first-to-file rule bars multiple whistleblowers from filing separate qui tam lawsuits based on the same fraud. The first whistleblower to file with original information typically has priority, and will reap the rewards of a successful case accordingly. It is important to note that whistleblowers need specific, non-public evidence of fraud, such as documents, emails, or firsthand knowledge of false claims submitted to the government. Strong evidence increases the likelihood of government intervention and success.

Contact an Experienced Qui Tam Lawsuit Attorney for Help
When you are or someone you know has evidence that their employer or other entity has committed fraud, it is important to discuss your concerns with an experienced qui tam attorney. Look for an attorney experienced in FCA or whistleblower law, who can advise you on the strength of your case and skillfully represent you throughout the process. Contact the qui tam lawyers of Alan C. Olson & Associates for immediate assistance at 262-785-9606.

01/18/2026

Retaliation for Requesting FMLA Leave

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) permits eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 12 month period for specific family and medical reasons, such as caring for a newborn or a seriously ill family member, or an employee’s own serious health condition. Once the request for FMLA leave is made, the process is pretty straightforward: the employee’s supervisor along with the company’s HR representative will determine if the request is covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act and, if so, it is approved.

However, there are times when an employer may question whether an employee is misusing FMLA. If there is a pattern of taking intermittent leave before or after a holiday weekends, making requests after a vacation is denied, or even sharing posts on social media that contradict the medical reason given for taking leave, the employer may become suspicious of FMLA abuse.

Things are not always how they appear, however. It may just be a coincidence that an employee’s FMLA leave request coincides with a holiday weekend or that a request for leave is to override a denied vacation request. Certainly, social media posts can be misinterpreted, leading to a misrepresentation of the true nature of an employee’s health condition.

If an employer is concerned about inconsistencies, they are permitted to ask the employee for an explanation that may clear up any misgivings. Under some circumstances, the employer may also request a medical recertification to ask whether a pattern of leave usage or observed physical activity is consistent with the employee’s diagnosis. The employer may go further to investigate by hiring a third party investigator or interviewing other employees. However, if the employer crosses the line, intent on rushing to judgement, harassing, or even firing an employee for perceived misuse, it may be a case of FMLA retaliation prohibited under the law.

When Does FMLA Retaliation Occur?

FMLA retaliation occurs when an employer takes an adverse employment action against an employee for exercising their right to take job protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which may include denying leave, reducing hours after an employee has taken FMLA leave, or even wrongful discharge of an employee for perceived misuse.

Employees are legally protected from retaliation when requesting or taking FMLA leave and may seek legal recourse if they believe their employer has retaliated against then for taking FMLA leave.

FMLA Prohibitions at a Glance
Section 105 of the FMLA and section 825.220 of the FMLA regulations prohibit the following actions:

- An employer is prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any FMLA right.
- An employer is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise any FMLA right.
- An employer is prohibited from discharging or in any other way discriminating against any person, whether or not an employee, for opposing or complaining about any unlawful practice under the FMLA.

All persons, whether or not employers, are prohibited from discharging or in any other way discriminating against any person, whether or not an employee, because that person has:

- Filed any charge, has instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding under or related to the FMLA;
- Given, or is about to give, any information in connection with an inquiry or proceeding relating to any right under the FMLA;
- Testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to a right under the FMLA.

Examples of prohibited conduct include:

- Refusing to authorize FMLA leave for an eligible employee,
- Discouraging an employee from using FMLA leave,
- Manipulating an employee’s work hours to avoid responsibilities under the FMLA,
- Using an employee’s request for or use of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions,
- Counting FMLA leave under “no fault” attendance policies.

Any violations of the FMLA or associated regulations constitute interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of rights provided by the FMLA. If you have suffered an adverse employment action, harassment, or were wrongfully terminated from your job because you requested or took FMLA leave, it is important to seek the help of an experienced employment law attorney. Contact the Law Office of Alan C. Olson & Associates for immediate assistance.

01/17/2026

Reverse Discrimination Section 1981 Vs Title VII

When an employee is subject to employment discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, they may bring a claim under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 depending on the unique circumstances of their case.

In a recent case, a former national big box store employee is suing the employer alleging he was retaliated against and eventually fired for complaining about the conduct of two minority managers. The worker alleges his treatment is a case of reverse racial discrimination after the company adopted DEI policies that implicitly promote racism and encourage the hire, retention and promotion of individuals based on illegal qualifications of race.

Violations of Federal Employment Law

Typically, cases involving workplace discrimination are litigated under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but in this case, and many other similar cases stemming from DEI policies, the worker has charged his previous employer with violating Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

What is Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866?

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ensures that all individuals in the U.S. have the same rights to make and enforce contracts, free from racial discrimination. It specifically protects against intentional racial discrimination in contractual relationships, including employment.

Section 1981 has emerged in recent years to oppose DEI programs on the premise of reverse discrimination. While there is some overlap between the laws, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 differs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in several important ways:

- Section 1981 does not cap damages, so the plaintiff and his or her attorney have more negotiating power during settlement proceedings
- Section 1981 is not subject to the U.S. EEOC, so cases may be brought immediately to court
- The statute of limitations is longer, allowing plaintiffs several years to file a lawsuit
- Section 1981 specifically addresses racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, including employment
- A plaintiff may bring a complaint against small employers and individuals within an organization

How Does Title VII Differ?

One of the key differences between Title VII and Section 1981 lies in the scope of protection. Title VII provides a broad range of protections against various forms of discrimination, including race, color, religion, s*x, and national origin. It covers all aspects of employment, such as hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment. Additionally, Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments, as well as private and public sector employers.

Can I Sue for Racial Discrimination Under Both Sections 1981 and Title VII?

Workplace discrimination can invoke both Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Casting a wider net may have some advantages:

- A dual strategy provides broader coverage. If Title VII fails (e.g. missed EEOC deadline or small employer) Section 1981 has a longer timeline and wider employer reach.
- Often times a case involves disparate impact or non-race discrimination (s*x discrimination AND racial discrimination together) therefore a Title VII claim is also appropriate.
- Pairing EEOCs investigative might under Title VII and uncapped damages under section 1981 can exert pressure leading to a more timely and favorable settlement.
- It is important to work with an experienced attorney to discuss what state and federal laws apply in a workplace discrimination case.

Contact an Experienced Discrimination Lawyer for Help

When you suffer employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, s*x (including gender, pregnancy and s*xual orientation), national origin, or disability in the workplace it is important to seek the help of an experienced discrimination lawyer to represent you. Contact the employment discrimination attorneys of Alan C. Olson and Associates for help today.

01/16/2026

FMLA Leave for Mental Health

Studies reveal that a growing number of Americans are facing mental health challenges. Depression, frequent or chronic mental distress, psychological disorders, and su***de have all seen sharp increases in recent years. Because mental health conditions can be very debilitating, employees may need to take time off to deal with serious mental health conditions of their own, or take leave to help a close family member who is struggling with a serious psychological issue.

Are Mental Health Conditions Covered Under FMLA?
Eligible employees are permitted to take FMLA leave for their own serious health condition, or to care for a spouse or child that is suffering from a serious health condition, which include both physical and mental health conditions.

How Are Mental Health and Physical Conditions Deemed To Be Serious Under FMLA?
Mental and physical conditions are deemed serious if they require inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. Serious mental health conditions such as addiction, eating disorders, various psychological disorders, or attempted su***de often require an overnight (inpatient) stay in a hospital or medical care facility.

A serious mental health condition may also require an employee or their family member to undergo continuing treatment, which may also be covered under FMLA. Conditions that cause incapacitation for three consecutive days and ongoing medical treatment, whether they be multiple appointments with a mental health care provider, or a single appointment for follow-up care, are considered continuing treatment under FMLA. Chronic conditions (anxiety, depression, other mental health disorders) that cause occasional incapacitation and periodic treatment by a health care provider may also qualify.

Eligible employees may take up to 12 work weeks of leave for their own serious mental health condition when they are unable to perform the essential duties of their job. Leave may also be taken to provide care for close family members – spouse, parent, minor child – due to a serious health condition.

Job Protected Leave to Care for Adult Children with Mental Health Conditions
For children who are 18 years or older, a parent may use FMLA leave for a serious mental health condition if the adult child is incapable of self-care because of a mental of physical disability. Under FMLA, a disability is defined as a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one of more life activities. Mental conditions such as bipolar disorder, major depressive disorders, PTSD, OCD, schizophrenia and other serious mental health conditions are typically included under this definition.

Retaliation for Taking FMLA Leave to Address Mental Health Conditions
Unfortunately, employees may face push back when requesting FMLA to deal with a mental health condition they themselves are suffering or when they are needed to care for a family member in crisis. There is a pervasive lack of understanding regarding the toll mental health conditions take on the individual or the impact they have on families providing care for loved ones with mental health issues.

Employers are strictly prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying rights under FMLA with regard to a serious mental health condition. This includes threats of, or actual retaliation such as job termination, for requesting or using FMLA leave. If you believe your rights under FMLA have been violated, it is important to discuss your concerns with an experienced FMLA denial or retaliation attorney. Contact the employment law attorneys of Alan C. Olson & Associates for assistance at 262-785-9606.

01/14/2026

Artificial Intelligence Employment Discrimination Claims

There is a growing body of litigation and regulatory scrutiny regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in employment decisions such as hiring, promotions, job performance, and termination. This is largely because AI is trained with historical data, raising the concern that AI is perpetuating biases that have a disparate impact on protected groups with regard to employment. It follows that plaintiffs in cases involving AI and automated decision making often allege employment discrimination on the basis of race, s*x, age and disability – violations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Recent Employment Law Cases Involving AI – Allegations, Outcomes, and Implications

- An ongoing class action case, Mobley v. Workday, Inc., alleges that an HR software company provided discriminatory AI screening tools that resulted in the plaintiff (an African-American man, over 40, with disabilities) being rejected from over 100 jobs across client companies. The plaintiff alleges that he was subject to automatic “midnight” rejections based on race, age, and disability hinting at algorithmic bias rather than human review of his applications. Last year the court ruled that the software company could be held liable as an “agent” for employers and, more recently, certified the class under the ADEA allowing opt-ins from similarly affected applicants nationwide. The implications are huge in that vendors are not shielded if their tools actively recommend/reject candidates, nor are employers, who could be liable if they fail to audit vendor AI for bias.
- In EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc. (settled August 2023), the EEOC sued three related online tutoring companies for using AI software that automatically rejected female applicants over 55 and male applicants over 60, violating ADEA. The EEOC alleged the tool screened resumes without human input, filtering out protected age groups. The resulting consent decree required iTutorGroup and affiliates to pay over $350K as back pay and compensatory damages to affected applicants who were automatically rejected because of their ages. The case highlights the risks in resume-screening AI, and points to the responsibility employers have to ensure human oversight of the employment process.
- D.K. v. HireVue (filed 2024; ongoing) involves an indigenous, deaf woman who alleges HireVue’s video interview AI (using speech recognition) denied her a promotion due to biases against non-white and deaf speakers, violating ADA and potentially Title VII. She further alleges the AI tool scores candidates on “soft skills” like communication, disadvantaging accents or disabilities. The case is in its early stages, but underscores promotion risks and opt-out rights, and the need for video/AI interviews to accommodate disabilities as required under the ADA.

Contact an Experienced Employment Law Attorney for Help

Litigation regarding AI in the employment process is expected to grow, with plaintiffs not only bringing employment discrimination complaints against employers, but also AI vendors through individual claims and collective actions. EEOC investigations surged in 2024-2025 with an expectation that more suits will be brought regarding job termination recommended by AI, denied promotions due to AI biased performance metrics, and discriminatory AI screening for job candidates, spelling trouble for employers and vendors alike.

When you are denied employment, fired from your job, or denied promotion due to biased AI or automated decision making tools, it is important to seek knowledgeable guidance. Contact the employment law offices of Alan C. Olson & Associates for answers at 262-785-9606.

01/12/2026

National Origin Employment Discrimination Directed at US Citizens

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on national origin (or perceived origin) in all terms of employment from hiring decisions, pay, advancement, to demotion and termination. Title VII is designed to protect all workers from bias based on their country of origin, whether an employee is an American born citizen or an employee who is originally from or associated with a country outside of the U.S..

The original intent of discrimination laws under Title VII with regard to national origin was to shield immigrants and ethnic minorities from exclusionary practices in the workplace. However, more recently, the application of the law has evolved to include cases where U.S. citizens are being sidelined in favor of foreign nationals in visa heavy industries such as tech.

Fortunately, anti-discrimination law does not carve out exceptions for majority groups, but offers protections against workplace discrimination across the board. Driving home the point, in 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down any heightened pleading standards for reverse discrimination claims under Title VII, which had previously required majority group plaintiffs (U.S. born Caucasian workers) to show extra background circumstances to prove the employer favored minorities. The court ruled that Title VII protects individuals, not groups, leveling the field so American citizens can sue for anti-American bias without heightened standards just like other employees.

In broader enforcement against national origin anti-American violations, the EEOC has stated clearly that discrimination against U.S. workers is illegal. In 2025, the EEOC released guidance warning against job ads preferring H-1B visa holders, off the book pay undercutting U.S. wages, or stereotypes such as “foreign workers are cheaper/more productive than their U.S. citizen counterparts, all of which point to national origin discrimination. Under Title VII, both American citizens and foreign born/affiliated workers enjoy the same anti-discrimination protections under the law.

Not surprisingly, enforcement data shows increasing claims of national origin discrimination every year, with many intersecting with citizenship bias. Many refer to the issue as reverse discrimination, echoing a broader DEI backlash, but in reality the law isn’t about protecting American jobs per se, but protecting American citizens and foreign nationals alike.

Title VII Protections in Action
In Hiring – Lawsuits involving ads for “U.S. born only” or “H-1B visa preferred ads” are prohibited as they sideline both U.S. and foreign applicants

Workplace Policies – EEOC is probing foreign-owned firms denying employment to, or assigning U.S. worker to dead end roles while fast tracking foreign nationals. Conversely, the EEOC scrutinizes U.S. firms favoring U.S. applicants and employees over foreign nationals – it cuts both ways

Harassment – Discrimination suits involving “harassment of U.S. workers” mocked as lazy Americans by international teams or harassment involving workplace rules that disadvantage foreign workers can result in a finding of national origin discrimination

Contact Our Employment Discrimination Attorneys for Help
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, s*x, national origin and other protected classes. National origin refers to where an employee is born (or where their ancestors were born); their ethnicity or ethnic group; and the accent, customs, or physical appearance tied to a country or regions. Refusing to hire someone whether they are American, Indian, or Mexican is discrimination based on national origin. If you have been discriminated against when applying for jobs or suffered an adverse employment decision based on national origin, contact the employment law offices of Alan C. Olson & Associates for immediate assistance.

01/12/2026

Job Discrimination Over Arrests and Convictions

Individuals with arrest or conviction records in Wisconsin face unique challenges in the job market, but fortunately, state law provides strong protections against discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA).

According to the WFEA, employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and licensing agencies are prohibited from discriminating based on an arrest or conviction record in nearly every aspect of employment such as hiring, promotions, pay, training, and termination. Limited exceptions for job-related risks aside, the WFEA allows for more job opportunities for those reentering the workforce following a brush with the law.

Key Protections for Employees Regarding Arrest and Conviction Records
Wisconsin law defines an arrest record broadly as any information indicating a person has been questioned, apprehended, detained, held for investigation, arrested, charged, indicted, or tried for a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense by law enforcement. Employers cannot ask about arrests on job applications or during interviews, except for pending charges, and must clarify that any such information will only be considered if “substantially related” to the job. Blanket policies like “no hires with records” are illegal.

If an employer discovers a record post-hiring, they can only act if the circumstances of the arrest or conviction are substantially related to job performance or safety. This takes into account the nature of the charge against the applicant, the time elapsed since the incident, and any rehabilitation evidence that directly relates to the duties of an employee’s job. For example, a job applicant or employee working as a direct care worker at a residential facility with a ‘recent’ arrest record or pending charges involving physical abuse of a child may be turned down or terminated from a job because the charge/arrest is substantially related to the performance of the job which includes caring for vulnerable populations.

For arrests, discrimination occurs if the record motivates the decision, even partially, unless it’s a pending charge substantially related to the employment role. Convictions follow a similar test: An employer may refuse to hire or terminate only if the offense “substantially relates” to the job’s duties.

Federal Laws Related to Arrests and Convictions in Employment
Federal laws bolsters protections under WFEA: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits policies that disproportionately exclude protected groups (e.g., racial disparities in incarceration rates) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) mandates accurate background checks and requires notice to applicants if records enter into the employment decision.

Recent Developments and Exceptions
A 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court case, Oconomowoc Area School District v. Cota, expanded “arrest record” to include non-criminal citations and clarified that even minor reliance on such records can violate the WFEA—unless based solely on an independent employer investigation. Exceptions also allow refusals for dishonesty on applications or bondability requirements for certain roles.

Filing a Complaint and Seeking Remedies
If you suspect discrimination based on an arrest or conviction record, it is important to discuss your concerns with an experienced employment law attorney. Violations of state and federal law may apply and remedies include damages for back pay, reinstatement, and attorney fees. Contact the employment law attorneys of Alan C. Olson & Associates for immediate assistance at 262-785-9606.