A finance manager who was denied the ability to take federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for her seriously ill adult sister was given a second chance to show that her employer violated the law, following a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The manager used five days of paid leave to care for her sister and then requested unpaid FMLA leave. Her employer, a luxury car dealership, insisted that the FMLA doesn’t cover leave to care for a sibling. It allowed some unpaid leave at its discretion but set a return date of three weeks later. When she was late arriving because of needing to wait for another caregiver to take over, the employer fired her. The employee’s sister died two days later.
FMLA and Sibling Care: When Does ‘In Loco Parentis’ Apply?
The employee asserted she was providing personal physical and emotional care for her sister that was equivalent to what a parent would provide. The FMLA allows eligible employees to take time off to care for a spouse, child (under 18 or disabled), or parent. A parent-child relationship can be formed not just when someone is a biological or legal parent, but also when someone is “in loco parentis,” meaning they stand in the shoes of a parent. The Sixth Circuit determined that an in loco parentis relationship could have formed between the employee and her sister because the FMLA regulations don’t specifically forbid individuals from taking time off to care for an adult sibling who becomes incapable of self-care in adulthood.
Parental Role or Sibling Support? Court Sends FMLA Case Back for Closer Look
The court also outlined how it would determine whether the employee took on the role “with the intention” of serving as a parent. It would consider “direct evidence of how the two adults regard one another, both when communicating to each other and describing their relationship externally.” The court would also consider indirect evidence, specifically whether the “parent”: (1) is in close physical proximity to the “child;” (2) assumes responsibility to support the “child;” (3) exercises control or has rights over the “child;” and (4) has a close emotional or familial bond with the “child,” similar to the bond between a parent and their adult child. The court ultimately did not take a position one way or another as to whether the employee was acting as a parent, but it sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the employee intended to form a relationship that was parental in nature (Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises, 6th Cir, Dec. 2024).
Tips: The court of appeals covering Vigilant’s geographic membership area is the Ninth Circuit, not the Sixth Circuit, but it’s still a significant decision that could be persuasive here. If a covered family relationship isn’t obvious, be sure to gather enough details about the relationship before denying a request for FMLA leave to care for a family member. If you are considering denying leave, it may be helpful to probe further about the familial relationship and the kind of care the employee will provide. There may be relationships that qualify as “in loco parentis,” but you won’t know unless you specifically ask the employee. In addition, you should examine whether any other protected leaves of absence may apply, including state-specific family leave(s) or sick leave. For example, some state laws specifically allow leave to care for siblings or other individuals not listed in the FMLA.
For a quick overview of family leave that may be available to employees in addition to any paid sick leave rights, Vigilant members can see our Legal Guides comparing the FMLA to state family leave laws in California, Oregon, and Washington. Your Vigilant Law Group employment attorney can also assist you with any difficult FMLA situations.
FMLA and employment law challenges can be tricky. Vigilant membership offers the counsel you need to stay compliant and make informed decisions.
Learn more about membership today.
