Back in 2012, I blogged here about an employee who took her mother to Las Vegas on a vacation. The two ladies spent time playing slots, shopping on the Strip, people-watching, and dining at restaurants. The mother had terminal cancer, but had no specific plans to seek medical treatment in Las Vegas and was never hospitalized or treated by a physician.
When the employee returned to work, she soon became a former employee, immediately terminated for what her employer determined to be unauthorized absences.
The employee then sued for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
An Illinois federal court ruled here that the employee had a tenable FMLA claim because she was "caring for" her mom, who had a serious health condition (terminal cancer), by helping her with basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs. It did not make where the care was administered. It just mattered that the employee was caring for her sick mom.
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit affirmed in this opinion, where, again, the issue came down to what it means to "care for" a family member with a serious health condition.
The appellate court agreed with the lower court that it doesn't matter where care is provided, just as long as care is provided:
Sarah's basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs did not change while she was in Las Vegas, and Beverly continued to assist her with those needs during the trip. In fact, as the district court observed, Beverly's presence proved quite important indeed when a fire at the hotel made it impossible to reach their room, requiring Beverly to find another source of insulin and pain medicine. Thus, at the very least, Ballard requested leave in order to provide physical care. That, in turn, is enough to satisfy [the FMLA].
So, if your employee needs time off to care for a significant other with a serious health condition, get an FMLA medical certification to satisfy yourself that the leave is covered.
Otherwise, what does it matter where the employee cares for a loved one?