|February 14, 2014|
Previously published on February 6, 2014
On January 28, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court and found that an employee’s trip to Las Vegas with her terminally-ill mother qualified as leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). See Ballard v. Chicago Park District, No. 10-C-1740, January 28, 2014.
Beverly Ballard worked for the Chicago Park District and cared for her mother, Sarah, who was receiving hospice care for end-stage congestive heart failure. During a meeting attended by Beverly, Sarah, and the social worker to discuss Sarah’s end-of-life goals, Sarah told her daughter she had always wanted to take a family trip to Las Vegas. With help from a nonprofit agency, the social worker secured funding for the trip.
During the trip, Beverly continued to provide care to her mother, even finding replacement insulin when a fire at their hotel prevented them from accessing Sarah’s medicine. The Chicago Park District terminated Beverly’s employment for unauthorized absences during the trip, and Beverly filed suit.
The FMLA provides eligible employees with 12 weeks of leave to “care for” a spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee if he or she has a “serious health condition.” The Chicago Park District argued, in part, that Beverly did not “care for” her mother in Las Vegas because she was already providing her mother with care at home, and the trip was not related to any continuing medical treatment.
There was no dispute that Sarah had a serious health condition. The primary issue in the case was what qualifies as “caring for” a family member under the FMLA.
Focusing on the text of the FMLA, the court noted that the section granting the leave entitlement speaks of “care,” not treatment, and the statutory text does not restrict care to a particular place or geographic location. The court further supported its conclusion with language from the FMLA regulations, which provides that care for a family member encompasses “both physical and psychological care.”
The court’s opinion is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the court recognized that its decision creates a split with the First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal on the definition of “caring for” a family member. A split in the circuits could make the issue ripe for a review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Second, the court acknowledged, but dismissed, the Chicago Park District’s concern that the court’s expansive reading of the term “caring for” will open the door to increased FMLA requests and create a greater potential for FMLA abuse.
Employers that are already wary of the complications inherent in administrating FMLA leave, should remember that any reason to question the legitimacy of an employee’s leave, gives employers the right to request medical certification.