Page 1 - PLAINTIFF’S REBUTTAL WITNESS STATEMENT 

Dallas S. DeLuca, OSB #072992 

DallasDeLuca@MarkowitzHerbold.com 

Kristin M. Malone, OSB #151254 

KristinMalone@MarkowitzHerbold.com 

Katherine M. Acosta, OSB #165223 

KatherineAcosta@MarkowitzHerbold.com 

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 

1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000 

Portland, OR 97204-3730 

Tel: (503) 295-3085 

Fax: (503) 323-9105 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ANDREA OLSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and 

through the Department of Energy and 

Bonneville Power Administration; and 

JAMES RICHARD PERRY, Secretary of 

the Department of Energy, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02216-HZ

PLAINTIFF’S REBUTTAL WITNESS 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Andrea Olson (“Olson”) hereby submits her lay witness rebuttal statements 

pursuant to the Court’s Trial Management Order, ECF 117 and Scheduling Order, ECF 141. 

1. Andrea Olson 

Olson will testify, contrary to Sharon Hale-Mockley’s proposed testimony, that Olson did 

tell Hale-Mockley in February 2014 that she would invoke FMLA both directly, using the term 

“FMLA,” and also without using the term FMLA. (Dkt. # 131, Defs.’ Lay Witness List & 

Statements (“Defs.’ Statements”) at 3.) Olson will testify that she also informed BPA indirectly 

in February 2014 when she informed Megan Craft of MBO that she intended to invoke FMLA. 

Case 3:15-cv-02216-HZ Document 149 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 - PLAINTIFF’S REBUTTAL WITNESS STATEMENT 

Hale-Mockley will testify that she did not consider Olson a BPA employee, but an 

independent contractor and that Olson’s work was “independent” and that she was an “indirect 

contractor” starting in 2012. (Defs.’ Statements at 2.) Olson will testify that BPA required her 

to discontinue her status as an independent contractor in 2012 because BPA was concerned, 

beginning in at least late 2011, that she could be classified as a BPA employee, and therefore 

BPA required her to become an employee of MBO. BPA required Olson go through MBO in 

order to continue working at the agency or else BPA would terminate its relationship with Olson. 

Olson will testify that the nature of her work did not change with that change in status to working 

through MBO; she continued to work in the same manner that had originally caused BPA 

concern that she would be classified as an employee. Further, her work was not “independent,” 

because it required review and approval from Hale-Mockley. 

Hale-Mockley will testify as to her interactions with Olson, the nature of their 

relationship, and the nature of the work that Olson performed. (Id. at 2.) Olson will testify that 

their relationship and interactions changed over the course of 2010 to 2014, from a cooperative 

relationship with quick response times and where Hale-Mockley provided mentorship, to a 

difficult relationship where Hale-Mockley did not respond within appropriate timelines and 

created situations that made it difficult for Olson to make sure that BPA complied with its 

policies and laws concerning reasonable accommodations. 

Hale-Mockley will testify as to Olson’s leave and the communications related to it. (Id.

at 3.) Olson will testify that during her leave Olson continued to work on some issues that she 

was able to handle. Olson will testify that she was not offered a “coordinator position” and that, 

to the contrary, the purpose for her to return to work was to train Susan Riffel who had already 

replaced Olson. Hale-Mockley had, by email, already given Olson’s program coordinator role to 

Susan Riffel on April 14, 2014. 

Hale-Mockley will testify that she encouraged Olson to come into work to transition back 

to work. Olson will testify that Hale-Mockley’s statements and actions discouraged her from 

returning to work. 

Case 3:15-cv-02216-HZ Document 149 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 - PLAINTIFF’S REBUTTAL WITNESS STATEMENT 

Scott Hampton will testify concerning the June 5, 2014 meeting, and Hampton will 

testify that Olson indicated that she was not sure if she could return to work at that time or at her 

original number of hours. (Defs.’ Statements at 5.) Olson will testify that at that meeting she 

explained that she did believe she could ultimately return to work and that she hoped to work 

more hours. She will also testify that during that meeting Hampton made it clear that she would 

be training her replacement, a process that could be accomplished well before the end of her 

contract in January 2015. She will also testify that she attended only because she was afraid that 

if she did not attend the meeting, Olson would be deemed uncooperative and risk losing her job, 

even though Olson believed that she was not actually required to attend a face-to-face meeting. 

Brian Carter will testify that he decided in January or February 2014 that Olson’s position 

would be better filled by a federal employee. (Id. at 7.) Olson will testify that she met with 

Carter in February 2014 and did not discuss this topic. He did not indicate BPA intentions of 

having anyone else be the reasonable accommodations Coordinator except Olson. Based on her 

conversation with Carter, Olson believed Carter wanted Olson in his department more than he 

wanted Hale-Mockley. 

 DATED this 29th day of August, 2018. 

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC

By: /s/ Dallas DeLuca

Dallas S.DeLuca, OSB #072002 

DallasDeLuca@MarkowitzHerbold.com 

Kristin M. Malone, OSB #151254 

KristinMalone@MarkowitzHerbold.com 

Katherine M. Acosta, OSB #165223 

KatherineAcosta@MarkowitzHerbold.com 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

778268

Case 3:15-cv-02216-HZ Document 149 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 3