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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT