- Home
- Newsletters Home
- Who Must Need Care for FMLA?
Who Must Need Care for FMLA?
Editor's Note
Who Must Need Care for FMLA?
This case would never arise in California because the state's version of FMLA, the CFRA (California Family Rights Act), specifically includes an employee's right to take protected leave to care for an adult sibling.
But the federal law doesn't say that. So the employee had to claim that their sibling was so ill that they were basically acting as their parent, which is covered. I bet this comes up a lot.
The employer here also did pretty much everything they could to help the employee, even offering the person a modified schedule. I don't understand how the situation went from we're not sure you're entitled to FMLA but we're willing to work with you to the employee not showing up and being fired. I expect it involved an employee who was exhausted and under extreme stress and an employer frustrated by the situation both just giving up. I feel that way some days too.
If you have an employee whose family member is very ill, do your best to give them as much leave as they need. Allow them to use their paid leave. Allow them unpaid leave as long as they need it. When they are ready to return, find them a job if you can. They are caring for someone they love who may be dying, learning about illness, navigating the medical system, and trying to keep the rest of their life in some semblance of order. Work is not their priority, nor should it be.
The real issue is that under FMLA, the employer must continue to pay for the employee's health benefits for up to 12 weeks. But otherwise, the leave is unpaid. There's not much downside to granting FMLA leave when an employee asks for it, even if you're not sure it applies. Nobody is going to sue you for granting FMLA when they weren't entitled to it. And the cost of the benefits is still going to be less than the cost of fighting about it.
You don't need to be right when you can just solve the problem.
Also be sure to check your state laws on family leave because often they will be more expansive than FMLA and there may be additional resources like insurance or state benefits that cover a portion of the lost income during family leave.
- Heather Bussing
In Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”) expanded the scope of family relationships covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), ruling that employees may be eligible for leave to care for a seriously ill sibling.
Background
As a general rule, the FMLA provides eligible employees with unpaid, job-protected leave for the following reasons: (i) their own serious health condition; (ii) to care for a seriously ill or injured spouse, child, or parent; (iii) for the birth, adoption, or placement of a child; or (iv) to deal with "exigencies" related to their spouse’s military deployment. The FMLA also includes a limited exception when an employee assumes a parental role (“in loco parentis”) for someone who is not their legal child.
Facts
Celestia Chapman (“Chapman”) was employed as a finance manager at Brentlinger Enterprises, d/b/a Midwestern Auto Group (“MAG”), a luxury car dealership. While employed at MAG, Chapman began to care for her terminally ill sister, who was battling non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lived in another state. Chapman provided financial support for her sister, including paying part of her bills and purchasing groceries for her. She also performed daily caregiving tasks for her sister, such as cooking, cleaning, hand-feeding, and general housekeeping, as well as administering medications, driving her sister to medical appointments, and tending to her bed sores.
After Chapman exhausted her paid time off while caring for her sister, MAG allowed her to take a brief, unpaid, non-FMLA leave at its discretion, though the length of this leave was unclear. On her last paid day off, Chapman requested FMLA leave, but MAG denied her request, stating that the FMLA did not provide leave to care for an adult sibling. Although MAG declined her request for FMLA leave, it approved a modified schedule with reduced hours for her. However, Chapman did not report for work as scheduled, and MAG subsequently terminated her employment. Chapman then filed a lawsuit against MAG, claiming FMLA interference and retaliation. The district court ruled in favor of MAG, agreeing that the FMLA did not cover leave to care for an adult sibling.
The Sixth Circuit’s Decision
After an appeal of the district court’s decision, the Sixth Circuit considered whether Chapman could be eligible for FMLA leave based on an “in loco parentis” relationship with adult sibling. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of MAG, ruling that the district court erred in concluding that an in loco parentis relationship could not exist between adult siblings.
The Sixth Circuit acknowledged Chapman’s argument that, since she cared for her sister in a manner similar to how a parent cares for a child, she was acting in loco parentis to her sister. The Sixth Circuit noted that “the statutory text does not tell us whether the FMLA recognizes in loco parentis relationships under these circumstances.” As a result, the Sixth Circuit looked to the common law definition of in loco parentis, which refers to a person “who has put himself in a situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary a to legal adoption.” Additionally, the Sixth Circuit noted that the “touchstone of this inquiry is intention.”
The Sixth Circuit outlined several factors to evaluate “whether a person intended to assume parental status over another adult.” The factors evaluated by the Sixth Circuit include whether the person:
- Is in close physical proximity to the adult in question;
- Assumes responsibility for supporting them;
- Exercises control or has rights over them; and
- Shares a close emotional or familial bond with them, akin to that of an adult child.
Based on this guidance, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to reconsider whether Chapman and her sister had a relationship that was parental in nature.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Although currently limited to the states covered by the Sixth Circuit – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee – this case highlights the need for employers to carefully evaluate FMLA leave requests, especially when dealing with nontraditional caregiving situations.
As a best practice, employers should:
- Thoroughly review the facts and circumstances surrounding each FMLA request before denying leave; and
- Ensure that all FMLA requests are well-documented, and that communication with employees regarding leave requests is clear and consistent.
