Did this employer fall for the FMLA (in loco) parent(is) trap?

The facts from a recent Sixth Circuit decision are WILD!

A finance manager at a luxury car dealership requested FMLA leave to care for her terminally ill sister, who was battling non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The employer denied her request, asserting that the FMLA did not cover leave to care for an adult sibling. (More on this in a bit.) Despite this, the employee took unpaid leave to care for her sister. When she did not return to work as scheduled, the employer terminated her employment.

Additionally, the employer retroactively disenrolled her from the employee health insurance plan without providing the required COBRA notice and opposed her application for unemployment benefits by falsely claiming she had quit. The employee subsequently sued, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, among other claims.

In loco parentis.

Some of you may be thinking, “Eric, can employees take FMLA leave to care for adult siblings?”

The FMLA does not explicitly cover siblings, but there are times when employees (e.g., a grandfather or sister) act as parents for minors with serious health conditions. We call this in loco parentis.

However, in this case, an employee asked for leave to care for an adult sibling. Does the FMLA also cover this?

According to the Sixth Circuit, the common law meaning of in loco parentis may include relationships formed in adulthood, even after the onset of a disability, provided that the employee-caretaker shows that her relationship with her adult sibling is indeed an in loco parentis relationship. In other words, she must demonstrate that she intended to, and did, assume a parental role over her sibling, e.g., through day-to-day responsibilities and financial support.

Can opposing unemployment compensation create an FMLA retaliation claim?

The employee also alleged that the employer retaliated against her for requesting FMLA leave by terminating her employment and submitting false information to the unemployment agency.

First, an FMLA retaliation claim requires a protected activity.

Oh, I know one! Requesting FMLA leave.

Next, we need an adverse action.

Here, the Sixth Circuit found that the employer’s false statements to the unemployment agency could constitute an adverse action, as they could dissuade a reasonable worker from exercising their rights.

Takeaways for Employers:

1. Understand In Loco Parentis Relationships: Employers must recognize that in loco parentis relationships can extend beyond traditional parent-child dynamics and may include adult siblings. This broader interpretation can impact FMLA leave eligibility and requires careful consideration of the employee’s caregiving role and responsibilities. Remember, just because someone isn’t a parent doesn’t mean they can’t parent—think of it as the “parent trap” for HR!
2. Even ineligible employees may be protected from FMLA retaliation: Taking FMLA leave is clearly protected, but so is requesting it—even when the employee is not entitled to it.