Alan C. Olson
Top rated Employment & Labor attorney in New Berlin, Wisconsin
Alan C. Olson & Associates
Practice areas: Employment & Labor; view more
Licensed in Wisconsin since: 1989
Education: Marquette University Law School
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2014 - 2025 Call today:
262-373-9786
Alan C. Olson & Associates
2880 S Moorland RdNew Berlin, WI 53151 Visit website
Details
As an attorney at Alan C. Olson & Associates, located in New Berlin, Wisconsin, Alan C. Olson offers dedicated legal representation to individuals facing tough workplace disputes and disability-related claims. With a practice focused on long-term disability benefits and employment law, he advocates for clients seeking to protect their rights and secure fair outcomes in challenging circumstances.
With over 36 years of experience, Mr. Olson helps clients by providing thoughtful and strategic counsel tailored to each client’s situation. He understands that disputes involving employment or disability benefits can significantly affect a person’s financial stability and overall well-being. With this in mind, he works closely with clients to evaluate their legal options, address employer or insurer challenges, and pursue resolutions that align with their long-term interests.
Mr. Olson earned his Bachelor of Science degree, with distinction, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1985. He later attended the Marquette University Law School, where he obtained his Juris Doctor in 1989, concentrating on litigation and employment law. In that same year, he became licensed to practice law in Wisconsin. He is also admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Olson is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Wisconsin Employment Lawyers Association, and the American Association for Justice. He is also a fellow of The Litigation Counsel of America and has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America for his work in employment litigation. He holds an AV Preeminent* peer-review rating through Martindale-Hubbell, reflecting his notable contributions to the legal field.
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer-review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories – legal ability and general ethical standards.
Practice areas
Employment & Labor: EmployeeFocus areas
Employment Law - Employee
- 100% Employment & Labor: Employee
First Admitted: 1989, Wisconsin
Professional Webpage: http://employee-advocates.com/alan-c-olson/
Bar / Professional Activity
- National Employment Lawyers Association
- The Litigation Counsel of America, Fellow
- Employment Law Panel of the American Arbitration Association
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin
- American Association for Justice
- Milwaukee Bar Association Co-Chair Labor and Employment Law Continuing Legal Education Section, 2015
- Wisconsin Employment Lawyers Association
- Wisconsin Bar Association Board Member Labor and Employment Law Section, 2017
Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)
- In this Qui Tam suit, Rouse ex rel. United States v. Odyssey Healthcare, Mr. Olson's client recovered the largest dollar amount of any Medical fraud case in Wisconsin on behalf of the US government. ($30M)., 2013
- In Kaiser v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., Mr. Olson recovered substantial ERISA disability benefits, attorney fees and costs as a result of federal court litigation., 2016
- In Theresa Noble v. T-Lon Products, Mr. Olson successfully tried this FMLA case to win his client's loss of pay, benefits, interest and attorney fees., 2017
- In Mowery v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Mr. Olson litigated his client's ERISA claims in federal court to recover his client's disability benefits and attorney fees., 2017
- In Wink v. Miller Compressing, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury's conclusion that Wink's superiors were angry with her for requesting to be allowed to stay home (albeit working part of the day) two days a week, though she'd been doing that since February to the satisfaction of the employer. Hence the HR Manager's phony line that FMLA can't be used to authorize leave to take care of a very sick child even when obtaining day care for the child is difficult or even impossible because of the child's particular ailment—autism that in this case manifested itself at times in violent behavior. The Wink Court held that FMLA is explicit that an eligible employee (which Wink is conceded to have been) is entitled to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave per year in order to care for a family member with a serious health condition, including a child with such a condition. The Seventh Circuit also found that the district court's reduction of Wink's attorney fees by 20% was improper., 2017
- In Alberth v. Southern Lakes Plumbing & Heating Inc., Mr. Olson successfully tried this ERISA case in federal court to recover from his client's former employer substantial retirement benefits, attorney fees and statutory penalties, 2021
- Pursuant to a confidential settlement, Mr. Olson resolved three years of litigation in federal court regarding violations of his client's claims against a former employer for disability discrimination, FMLA interference and retaliation, 2022
- In Leslie Meganck vs. Ascension Columbia St. Mary's, Mr. Olson successfully tried this disability discrimination case, resulting in an award of lost pay, benefits, attorney fees and interest to his client., 2022
Videos
- Practices we use to pursue our clients' long-term disability benefits despite abusive practices by insurance carrier., Abusive Practices by Insurance Carriers.
- Resources to Fight Large Insurance Companies, 2013
- Supreme Court Argument, 2010
- Employment Law Case Evaluation, 2013
- Wisconsin Supreme Court Argument, 2012
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5kfVXGMYvw&feature=player_embedded&list=PLC64CAF62C00F2E22
- Client Focus Across Vocations, 2013
Representative Clients
- Representative Opponents
Special Licenses / Certifications
- Juris Doctorate, Marquette University Law School, 1989
- Mr. Olson serves as a mediator and arbitrator on the Employment Panel of the American Arbitration Association., 2022
Pro bono / Community Service
- Outstanding Pro Bono Law Firm Participation Award, 2010
- The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
- National Fibromyalgia Association
- Highschool Mock Trial Judge; MS Society; Arthritis Foundation
- Volunteer Lawyers Project
- National MS Society
- Mock Trial High School Competition
- The Arthritis Foundation
Educational Background
- University of Wisconsin, Madison, B.S., Honor: With Distinction
White Papers
- With the help of ordinary citizens and employees, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is gunning for companies that cheat the government. The DOJ then shares the booty with the individual who brought the fraud to light. The False Claims Act, referred to in the old days as “Lincoln’s Law”, was enacted in 1863 and continues today as the government’s primary litigation tool for recovering losses resulting from fraud. This article describes the steps involved in bringing a whistleblower claim and the hard-earned remedies available to the whistleblower for their help to our government. What is a false claim? Generally a False Claim is any fraudulent attempt to gain taxpayer funds. The term “claim” means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property that is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the United States. The types of fraud are as varied and far spanning as a deceitful human mind can imagine. Schemes to defraud the government include pharmaceuticals; Medicare; military equipment; and the commodities sold to assorted government agencies—among many others. False Claims Act anti-retaliation protection for employees Employees who blow the whistle on their employers are protected from retaliation under the False Claims Act. To invoke protection, the whistleblower must engage in protected activity. Protected activity equates to the employee, having a reasonable belief of fraud, investigating the fraud, and being discharged for reporting the employer’s fraud. Whistleblower employees who are retaliated against may recover make-whole remedies, including double the employee’s loss of back-pay, reinstatement, attorney fees and interest. The reinstatement remedy is often a concern raised by my clients. After all, who would want to go back to work for a company that engaged in fraud and then retaliated against them for reporting it? This would be the antithesis of a good employment relationship founded on trust and honesty. Point well taken but the employer must be held to the fire and forced to compensate the whistleblower in lieu of reinstatement. Whistleblower employees are also protected from constructive discharge, which is a situation where the employer creates intolerable working conditions, forcing the employee to quit. For example, even if the employer refrains from telling the whistleblower “you’re fired!” management may make the workplace a living hell by imposing impossible tasks, aggressive behavior, harassing statements, and exclusionary tactics. An employee who quits under such intolerable conditions may recover for retaliatory discharge. The whistleblower Complaint process A whistleblower may file a formal Complaint in any federal court where the defendant can be found. It is important for the whistleblower’s attorney to pick the forum most favorable to the case. The Complaint filing deadline is 6 years from the date that the whistleblower learned of the fraud. In retaliation cases, the whistleblower must file the Complaint within 3 years of the retaliation. The Complaint must describe the specific facts, including dates and the detailed events of fraud. The Complaint is filed under seal by the clerk of court and served on the DOJ. The whistleblower then serves the DOJ with a Disclosure Statement, which contains substantially all material evidence and information in the possession of the whistleblower. The Disclosure Statement must contain the following categories of information: Legal theories (keep separate) Facts Witnesses Copies/location of documents This information is designed to assist the DOJ’s investigation. In addition, a US Attorney may ask to interview the whistleblower and the whistleblower’s attorney personally for purposes of clarifying facts and assessing the whistleblower’s credibility. This is an opportunity for the whistleblower to explain details of the case to the US Attorney who will later decide whether to recommend spending the government’s resources to intervene and take over prosecution of the case. The defendant is not served for at least 60 days while the DOJ investigates the merits of the Complaint. The DOJ has a 60-day deadline to decide whether to intervene in the whistleblower’s case but may seek numerous extensions before intervening. The reason for these extensions is that the DOJ needs time to investigate what are usually complex factual patterns and intricate legal issues. The government remains a party in interest even after declining to intervene. The government intervenes in only 20% of FCA cases. If the DOJ does intervene, it may limit the whistleblower’s involvement in the litigation; pressure the whistleblower to settle the suit; and negotiate the lowest share possible to the whistleblower. The whistleblower’s personal attorney will engage in what is often intense negotiation with the US Attorney over these important matters. What constitutes a knowing intent to defraud? Under the False Claims Act, the term “knowing intent to defraud” means that a person has actual knowledge of the information; acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. Proof of specific intent to defraud is not required. An example of “recklessly disregarding the truth” would be a manager allowing invoices to go out to the government, knowing there is an overcharge inherent to the billing system, but failing to check the invoices manually for accuracy. Substantial remedies available to the government and whistleblower Under the False Claims Act, the government may recover triple the amount of its actual damages, e.g., $10M damages = $30M remedies. (The award may be reduced to double damages if the defrauding party cooperates with the government.) In addition, penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per violation may be ordered. DOJ Sharing Guidelines The following are several items that the DOJ will consider for a possible increase in the percentage shared with the whistleblower: The whistleblower reported the fraud promptly. When he learned of the fraud, the whistleblower tried to stop the fraud or reported it to a supervisor or the government. The suit filing, or the ensuing investigation, caused the offender to halt the fraudulent practices. The complaint warned the government of a significant safety issue. The complaint exposed a nationwide practice. The whistleblower provided extensive, first-hand details of the fraud to the government. The government had no knowledge of the fraud. The whistleblower provided substantial assistance during the investigation and/or pretrial phases of the case. At his deposition and/or trial, the whistleblower was an excellent, credible witness. The whistleblower's counsel provided substantial assistance to the government. The whistleblower and his counsel supported and cooperated with the government during the entire proceeding. The case went to trial. The FCA recovery was relatively small. The filing of the complaint had a substantial adverse impact on the whistleblower. The following are several items that the DOJ will consider for a possible decrease in the percentage shared with the whistleblower: The whistleblower participated in the fraud. The whistleblower substantially delayed in reporting the fraud or filing the complaint. The whistleblower, or whistleblower's counsel, violated FCA procedures: (a) complaint served on defendant or not filed under seal; (b) the whistleblower publicized the case while it was under seal; (c) statement of material facts and evidence not provided. The whistleblower had little knowledge of the fraud or only suspicions. The whistleblower's knowledge was based primarily on public information. The whistleblower learned of the fraud in the course of his government employment. The government already knew of the fraud. The whistleblower, or whistleblower's counsel, did not provide any help after filing the complaint, hampered the government's efforts in developing the case, or unreasonably opposed the government's positions in litigation. The case required a substantial effort by the government to develop the facts to win the lawsuit. The case settled shortly after the complaint was filed or with little need for discovery. The FCA recovery was relatively large. The average whistleblower award is 16% when intervention occurs and only 20% when there is no intervention. In my view, any citizen or employee who has the hutzpah to stand up against their employer to fight fraud deserves every penny of the whistleblower award. As taxpayers we all pay the price for fraud against the government, so the bounty paid to the whistleblower is an important and well-earned incentive. Through the whistleblower program we recover billions of dollars from dishonest corporations and give it back to its rightful owners—U.S. citizens. Alan C. Olson, Whistleblower Retaliation, 2014, Whistleblower Retaliation, 2014
- Pitfalls, Pratfalls and Pearls of ERISA-LTD Litigation By Alan C. Olson | April 22, 2015 I. Long-term Disability Plans Under ERISA A. ERISA covers private employer-sponsored plans The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) covers long-term disability benefit plans that are provided to the employee through a private employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) (statutorily defining welfare benefits to include claims for health, life, and disability insurance, regardless of whether self-funded or insured). B. ERISA does not apply to individual, government, and church plans The provisions of ERISA shall not apply to any employee benefit plan if: Such plan is a governmental plan (as defined in section 1002(32)); Such plan is a church plan (as defined in section 1002(33)) with respect to which no election has been made under section 410(d) of Title 26; Such plan is maintained solely for the purpose of complying with applicable workmen's compensation laws or unemployment compensation or disability insurance laws; Such plan is maintained outside of the United States primarily for the benefit of persons substantially all of whom are nonresident aliens; or Such plan is an excess benefit plan (as defined in section 1002(36)) and is unfunded. (29 U.S.C. § 1003). II. Summary Plan Document and Plan Document The terms of LTD coverage are contained in a Plan Document (PD) and a Summary Plan Description (SPD). The SPD provides a detailed overview of the plan—how it works, what benefits it provides, and how to file a claim. For some single-employer collectively bargained plans, you should also check the collective bargaining agreement’s claim filing, grievance, and appeal procedures. A. Conflicting terms between SPD and PD A participant may rely on an SPD and estop a plan administrator from denying coverage only if there is a direct conflict between an SPD and the underlying policy. Mers v. Marriott Int'l Grp. Accidental Death & Dismemberment Plan, 144 F.3d 1014, 1024 (7th Cir. 1998). Silence in an SPD does not override specific provisions in the underlying plan. B. Total Disability defined by Plan The typical LTD Plan defines Total Disability as: "The complete inability of an Employee, because of injury, illness, or childbirth to perform the duties of his or her occupation. During a period of Total Disability, the Employee must be under the care of a qualified licensed physician other than an immediate family member." C. Elimination Period Most LTD plans provide for an "elimination period" of 90 or 180 days. This time period often coincides with the length of the claimant’s short-term disability policy. D. Own Occupation vs. Any Occupation clauses Own Occupation: Typically requires the insured to be unable to perform the material duties of their particular occupation. Courts look at how the job is performed in the national economy (per the Dictionary of Occupational Titles). Any Occupation: Defines disability as the inability to engage in any gainful occupation the insured is suited for based on education, experience, and training. Gainful usually means an income equal to at least 60% of former earnings. III. The Administrative Claim Process A. Claim review deadlines Claims must be reviewed within 45 days, with one 45-day extension available for "special circumstances." If the plan fails to meet these deadlines, the participant is "deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies" and may proceed to judicial review. B. Administrative appeal of denied claim Following denial, the plan must provide at least 180 days to appeal. Practice Tip: At the time of appeal, notify the carrier that you are appealing but require the full administrative record before providing additional information. C. SSDI eligibility as evidence of disability While Social Security Administration (SSA) findings are not binding on a court, they are "compelling evidence." If a plan encourages a claimant to apply for SSDI (and takes the financial offset) but then ignores the SSA's finding of disability, it suggests procedural unreasonableness. D. Using a vocational expert A vocational expert provides an independent assessment of whether the claimant is prohibited from earning a living based on medical records, education, and the labor market. E. Medical examination vs. Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE)FCE: Tests physical limits (pushing, pulling, etc.) and is often performed by a physical therapist. Reliability: FCEs can be unreliable if they fail to account for "post-testing impact" (the pain/crash that happens the day after the test). IV. Special Conditions: Pain, Fibromyalgia, and Psych Testing A. Fibromyalgia & Subjective Evidence Conditions like Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) are difficult because symptoms are subjective. Courts have held that a lack of "objective" laboratory tests is not a valid basis for denial if the disease is diagnosed via the "tender points" test and the resulting limitations are documented. B. Psychological Testing & Malingering Insurers often use tests like the MMPI-2 or the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) to claim a patient is "malingering" (faking). Practice Tip: The FBS is highly controversial and has been struck by some courts for being subjective and biased against women. V. Judicial Review of Plan’s Decision A. Statute of Limitations ERISA does not specify a statute of limitations, so the Plan’s internal deadline is usually enforced unless it is "unreasonably short." B. Standard of Review De Novo: The court makes an independent decision without giving deference to the insurer. This is the default. Arbitrary and Capricious: If the plan gives the administrator "discretionary authority," the court only checks if the decision was reasonable. However, if the insurer both decides the claim and pays the claim, a Conflict of Interest exists and is weighed as a factor. C. Remedies Reinstatement: Possible if the evidence is "clear cut. "Remand: Sending the case back to the insurer to "do it right. "Attorney Fees: A court may award fees if the litigant achieves "some degree of success on the merits.", Pitfalls, Pratfalls and Pearls of ERISA-LTD Litigation, Attorneys, 2015, Pitfalls, Pratfalls and Pearls of ERISA-LTD Litigation, Attorneys, 2015
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- Identification of Employer Vulnerabilities and Development of Fix Strategies., Presenter, Avoiding Hiring/Firing Pitfalls, Association Of Accountants, 2007
- This article highlighted the advantages of retaining a boutique law firms like Alan Olson & Associates, specializing in employment law., Opinion Expert, Better, Not Bigger, MKE Lifestyle magazine, Legal, 2019
- This presentation addressed Qui Tam suits in the context of the Lance Armstrong case in which the DOJ recently intervened., Presenter, FALSE CLAIMS ACT-Cardboard Boots, Steroids and Super Rogues, Labor And Employment Law Association, 2013
- Wisconsin employment benefits and employment rights under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Presenter, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- Inside The Treasure Chest, 2009
- Wisconsin Law Journal, 2014
- Attorney Presenter, Milwaukee Bar Association, Attorneys And Legal Professionals, 2015
- BNA Publishing, Metal Recycler on Hook for Bias Against Worker With Autistic Son, Employment Law, Mom Wins Right To Take FMLA Leave To Care For With Autistic Son, 2017
- Mom Wins Right To Take FMLA Leave To Care For With Autistic Son, Metal Recycler on Hook for Bias Against Worker With Autistic Son, Mom Wins Right To Take FMLA Leave To Care For With Autistic Son, Employment Law, Construction, Health, Manufacturing, Accounting, Banking, Finance, Sports, Travel, Real Estate, Retail, 2017
- Request for autistic son led to firing, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 2017
- Attorney, www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/Pages/General-Article.aspx?ArticleID=26015, State Bar of Wisconsin, 2017
- During this radio broadcast Attorney Olson answered questions by Mitch Nelles, about critical issues in the protection of employee rights and important legal trends in employee benefits, leave, pay, whistleblowing, retaliation and discrimination., Speaker, Ask The Expert, iHeart Radio 920, 2018
- HR professionals attended this Webinar to understand the circumstances under which they may be personally exposed to a legal claim. By understanding which state and federal laws allow for personal liability, the HR professional were better equipped to draft better policies, follow better procedures and take better precautions. In addition to reviewing the technical aspects of the law which impute personal liability, attendees of this program understood the practical aspects of how to avoid liability. Finally, the program provided the do’s and don’ts in responding to and defending against a personal suit., Speaker, Human Resource Personal Liability, Lorman, Banking, Accounting, Energy, IT, Transportation, Construction, Real Estate, Health, Leisure, 2022
Other Outstanding Achievements
- Alan's AVVO rating is "10 - Superb", 2019
- AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating in Employment Law and Employment Benefits., 2019
Honors
- Outstanding Pro Bono Law Firm Participation Award, Legal Action of Wisconsin, 2010
- Leading Lawyer, AVVO- M Magazine, 2012
- Pro Bono Honor Society 2013, State Bar of Wisconsin, 2014
- The Best Lawyers In America – Employment Litigation, The Best Lawyers in America, Best Lawyers, 2017
- Peer Review Rated AV® Preeminent, Employment Law, Employment Benefits, Martindale Hubbell, 2017
- Senior Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America, 2018
- Litigation- Labor & Employment, Best Lawyers
Selections
12 Years Super Lawyers
- Super Lawyers: 2014 - 2025
