December 26, 2024 | Category: Uncategorized

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides employees with job-protected leave for certain personal and medical reasons. Those reasons include birth and bonding of a child or placement of a child for adoption or foster care, a serious health condition of the employee, caring for a family member (spouse, child, or parents) with a serious health condition, and certain military-related reasons.

Traditionally, the family members an employee could take FMLA leave for did not include siblings. However, Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises, a recent court case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, suggests that FMLA could apply to sibling relationships in certain circumstances.

While a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is not binding on employers in Nevada, it does provide some key takeaways that employers in any jurisdiction can learn from.

Factual Background of Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises

Celestia Chapman was working as a finance manager for a luxury car dealership when she learned that her sister Sharon, who had been battling non-Hodgkin lymphoma, was terminal. Celestia agreed to be Sharon’s primary caregiver in her final days.

Celestia used her available paid time off to travel out of state to take care of Sharon. During that time, Celestia cooked Sharon’s meals and fed her, helped her use the bathroom, administered medications, bought groceries and household items, did laundry, cleaned the apartment, and provided emotional support. Celestia’s other sister, Alecia, also shared in some of the caretaking responsibilities.

When her paid time off ran out, Celestia requested FMLA to continue to care for her terminally ill sister. Her employer declined her request for FMLA stating that FMLA doesn’t cover leave to care for siblings. It is further alleged that Celestia was told that she needed to choose between her job and her sister.

While her employer was adamant that FMLA was not available in this situation, it did offer her some additional unpaid leave and a modified work schedule upon her return to work. On the day that Celestia was scheduled to return to work, she notified her employer via text message that she was running late as another caretaker for her sister had gotten delayed. Within one hour of Celestia’s text message reporting her delay, her employer terminated her. Her sister Sharon died two days later.

Celestia sued alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, associational disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and violations of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

Court Found FMLA May Apply Under In Loco Parentis

Historically, employees have not succeeded in getting FMLA leave to care for a sibling. This is because the FMLA definition of family member has been understood to not include siblings. This means that those who want to take leave for a sibling with a serious health condition, even if they are their main caregiver, have had no protection under the FMLA.

However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, found that FMLA protections may extend to siblings where one sibling acts in loco parentis (in place of a parent) to the other sibling.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court found, contrary to the employer’s argument, that an in loco parentis relationship does not have to form before the dependent reaches the age of eighteen or before the onset of the serious health condition that results in the need for leave. Therefore, adult siblings could have an in loco parentis relationship. The question then becomes whether one sibling actually intended to assume parental status over the other sibling. The Court noted simply providing aid to a loved one in need does not automatically establish an in loco parentis relationship.

The Court outlined several factors in making that determination. Those factors include whether the in loco parentis “parent” (1) is in close physical proximity to the adult in loco parentis “child,” (2) assumes responsibility to support them, (3) exercises control or has rights over them, and (4) has a close emotional or familial bond with them. These factors are not exclusive and no single factor is determinative.

The Court didn’t make a determination as to whether Celestia stood in loco parentis to her sister, Sharon, to support an entitlement to FMLA protections. They sent it back to the District Court to make that determination using the factors outlined above.

Takeaways for Employers

So, how should employers proceed based on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ guidance? There are several key takeaways for employers in light of this decision.

Know All the Details Before Making a Decision

If you have an employee who requests FMLA leave to care for a relation that has a serious health condition, do not dismiss the request simply because the relation isn’t within the traditional understanding of what a spouse, child, or parent is. Take a moment to get more information before making a decision.

Grandparents, aunt and uncles, siblings, and others can serve in a parental role. As the Court points out in this case, FMLA protects parental relationships, whether biological, legal, or their functional equivalents. Everyone’s family looks different. Do not make assumptions about what someone else’s relationship is (or is not) based on your own understanding.

Just Because Someone Else Can Do It Doesn’t Preclude FMLA Protections

The FMLA regulations do not require that the employee be the only person who can care for the family member with a serious health condition for FMLA to apply. In this case, Celestia shared caretaking responsibilities with another adult sibling. That doesn’t preclude her from being entitled to FMLA (assuming all other requirements are met). Just like both parents are entitled to FMLA for birth or placement of a child, someone who requests FMLA leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition is entitled to FMLA even if there is another caretaker present.

Additionally, for purposes of in loco parentis, the fact that there may be a biological parent present (including if both mother and father are present) does not prevent someone from standing in loco parentis to that child. The FMLA does not restrict the number of parents a child might have. The facts would govern whether the person was standing in loco parentis to that child.

Bad Facts = Bad Results

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals tends to be very employer-friendly court, so the decision here is a bit surprising. But is it really? In this case, the employer’s response to Celestia’s request for FMLA to choose her job or her terminally ill sister shows a lack of empathy for the situation. Further, there decision to terminate one hour after being notified of the delay likely didn’t do them any favors with the Court. Imagine how similar facts would be received by the more employee-friendly Ninth Circuit.

Remember, we are dealing with real people and real issues. Even if you feel you are correct on the law, there is no harm in being a decent human being. Having some grace will also go a long way in maintaining a positive relationship with the employee even if the end result is the same.

Conclusion

While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision may not be directly binding in Nevada, it provides valuable guidance for employers in all jurisdictions. By carefully considering the nuances of family relationships and avoiding hasty judgments, employers can navigate FMLA requests with greater understanding and minimize potential legal risks. This includes thoroughly investigating the facts of each situation, recognizing the diverse forms that family relationships can take, and approaching employee requests with empathy and a commitment to understanding individual circumstances.