ILNews

DTCI: 'Caring for' family under FMLA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

freybergerGenerally stated, the Family and Medical Leave Act gives eligible employees the right to 12 workweeks of leave “[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.” 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1)(C). What happens when a family member is diagnosed with a terminal illness and begins the somber review of their bucket list, noticing that a trip to Las Vegas is still unchecked? Would taking time to accompany and care for that family member be included in the definition of caring for under the FMLA? For instance, if a father is diagnosed with terminal cancer and been given the opinion that he has six months to live, can you request leave to take him to Italy to meet distant relatives because it has always been his dream to do so?

A similar question was presented to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the decision was rendered Jan. 28. In Ballard v. Chicago Park District, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1747; 2014 WL 294550, the issue was whether the FMLA applies when an employee requests leave to provide physical and psychological care to a terminally ill parent while that parent is traveling to Las Vegas to fulfill an end-of-life goal. The employee had been providing care to her mother before the trip. Through the help of a hospice worker, the funding for the trip was being provided by the Fairygodmother Foundation, a nonprofit organization that facilitates such opportunities for terminally ill adults.

The court ultimately found that this was covered by the FMLA. In doing so, the court parted ways with the 1st and 9th Circuits on this issue. The 7th Circuit pointed out that the FMLA does not restrict care of a family member to a particular geographic location. Care for an individual in Las Vegas is the same as care for that individual at home. The court also stated that the care provided can be both physical and psychological under the applicable regulations and would include providing comfort and reassurance for a family member who is receiving inpatient or home care, although the court refused to restrict it to situations of in-home care, noting that it was an example rather than an exclusive definition.

In Ballard, the employee was actively caring for her mother before the Las Vegas trip. She also provided physical care for her mother while on the trip, so the need for leave was not solely to provide moral support. It could conceivably be a different outcome if the need for leave was to accompany a family member on a trip while no actual medical care is being rendered. However, the 7th Circuit seemed to address this potential situation by stating, “[a]ny worries about opportunistic leave-taking in this case should be tempered by the fact that this dispute arises out of the hospice and palliative care context.” This seems to give significance to the dire situation being faced by the family, making it logical that psychological care was needed, and the employee was not using the opportunity to take a vacation.•

__________

Greg Freyberger is a partner in the litigation section of the Evansville firm Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP, and is a member of the board of directors of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT