Comments on: Who counts as a ‘family member’ under FMLA?

By: Johns

Johns — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:33:01 +0000

I am fortunate enough to work for a company that is small and we generally are able to work with employees even if the reason is not listed under FMLA. Because we are so generous, people generally do not abuse our time off policies. I do however feel for companies that have several hundred or even thousands of employees to keep track of this type of thing. It could cost a fortune and once you set that precedence, you better allow the rest of them to do it! I don’t blame the company for challenging it, but I also understand the court’s decision. It’s tough out here these days no matter how you do it!

By: R. B.

R. B. — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:20:28 +0000

In reading the case, Martin did state that he “in loco parentis” when requesting the leave. FMLA was initially granted, but only through the end of his contract period. The way it sounds is that his contract wasn’t renewed because he was on FMLA leave since he couldn’t complete his performance improvement plan, so it’s a little more complicated than the article indicates. Also, his daughter was never deployed. While he was giving care to the granddaughter when the daughter was in school and when she was away for weekend Reserve duty, I would have thought his need for leave would have become intermittent. I didn’t see anything in the part I read that addressed this. I didn’t read through the entire file, but it sounds like the school wouldn’t have terminated Martin’s contract if he hadn’t been on FMLA leave, which would certainly be a violation of the Act. Again, without reading the whole file, but reading the first six pages, it sounds like the courts were pretty much right on this one.

By: Christina

Christina — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:02:13 +0000

This is not new!
In loco parentis has been the standard for at least a few years; I’d always assumed it came along with the original FMLA.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:29:56 +0000

The company still has to avoid precedents, so I believe it did the right thing in challenging the employee. “In loco parentis” wasn’t established until the case began. If the guardian had presented evidence beforehand, this whole matter could have been avoided. Also, the courts increasingly side w/ employees in these types of cases.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:06:51 +0000

My reading of “in loco parentis” for a very similar situation found that the obligations of a parent are to be met and I hope the court found the requirements met and was not too loose in this. To be “in loco parentis” the obligations are to care for day-to-day and provide financial support of the child.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:53:34 +0000

Bob, if you don’t see the difference between fraudulently claiming to be acting as a parent for a strangers children and a grandparent who needs time to care for a sick grandchild he is helping to raise, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think it is too easy to see the employee as the enemy or trying to get one over on the company, but it is infinitely more rewarding to act with compassion when making decisions like this. How much cheaper would it have been for the company to simply give the guy the time off to care for his sick grandchild rather then having to go to court and eventually losing.

By: bob

bob — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:54:36 +0000

this is a joke. I guess I’ll leave today and go assume the role of a parent for my neighbors kid while they work all week.