Absences to care for a family member with a serious health condition do not need to be connected to medical treatment — nor do they depend on a particular location — to qualify as leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in Ballard v. Chicago Park District, No. 13-1445 (7th Cir., Jan. 28, 2014).
The 7th Circuit agreed with a 2012 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division that denied summary judgment to Chicago Park District in Beverly Ballard’s FMLA interference lawsuit. The 7th Circuit found that “FMLA’s text does not restrict care to a particular place or geographic location. … The only limitation it places on care is that the family member must have a serious health condition.”
With the Ballard ruling, the 7th Circuit “parted ways” from the 1st and 9th Circuits in its “straight-forward” interpretation of FMLA’s “needed to care for” provision.
Facts of the Case
Beverly Ballard worked for nearly 25 years as a Chicago Park District swim instructor before being fired for taking unauthorized absences. Ballard sued her former employer for interfering with her FMLA rights. She claimed that her employer denied her request for caregiver leave and then fired her for absences caused by a need to accompany her ailing mother on an end-of-life Las Vegas trip. She argued that their trip was protected under FMLA because she “cared for” her mother during the trip.
Background
In early 2006, Ballard’s mother Sarah was diagnosed with end-stage congestive heart failure and began receiving hospice services in her daughter’s home.
On Dec. 19, 2007, Fairygodmother Foundation granted Sarah and Beverly a trip to Las Vegas as part of the organization’s mission to grant wishes to individuals with terminal illnesses. Beverly, acting as primary caregiver, accompanied her mother on the trip from Jan. 21 through Jan. 26, 2008.
In addition to administering her mother’s medication and “looking after her,” Ballard spent time with her mother playing slots, shopping on the strip, people-watching and dining at restaurants. Ballard admitted in court that there were no plans for her mother to seek professional medical care, therapy or treatment for her heart condition in Las Vegas, nor did Horizon Hospice provide any services for Sarah during the trip.
Ballard returned to work a day later than her scheduled date of return because of a Las Vegas hotel fire that prevented her from making her original flight home. Less than two months later the park district fired her for unauthorized absences.
Court Weighs in
The 7th Circuit said it found for Ballard because: (1) FMLA defines “care” expansively to include “physical and psychological care”— without any geographic limitation; and (2) Ballard requested leave to provide physical care for her mother, which was enough to satisfy 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1)(C).
Sarah’s basic medical, hygienic and nutritional needs did not change while she was in Las Vegas, the circuit court determined, and Beverly continued to assist her with those needs during the trip.
As the district court observed, the appellate court found Beverly’s presence proved quite important when a fire at the hotel made it impossible to reach their room, requiring Beverly to find another source of insulin and pain medicine.
According to the rules under 29 C.F.R. §825.302(d) that were in effect at the time (until Jan. 15, 2009), Ballard’s alleged failure to follow internal employer procedures did not permit the park district “to disallow or delay” her from taking leave because she raised a genuine issue on whether she gave timely verbal notice to her supervisor.
Employer Takeaways
Although FMLA does not further define the meaning of the phrase “care for,” the U.S. Department of Labor regulations state that “needed to care for” encompasses both physical and psychological care. What’s more, DOL recognized that terminally ill family members might not be receiving active medical treatment at all. Examples include Alzheimer’s, a severe stroke or the terminal stages of a disease.
The “needed to care for” provision has a rather extensive case history of being broadly interpreted by the courts. The limitations of whether the leave should be covered under FMLA vary greatly and largely depend on the specific facts of the case.
Employers concerned about the risk that employees will abuse FMLA’s caregiver leave provisions may require such leave requests be certified by the family member’s health care provider. (See 29 U.S.C. §2613.)
Related Thompson Articles
Judgments Vary in ‘Needed to Care for’ FMLA Scenarios
Court Recognizes Employee’s ‘Need to Care for’ Dying Mother in Trip to Las Vegas