Did Daughter Really “Need to Care for” Mom in Las Vegas?
A jury is going to decide the winner of this game. Recently a district court in Illinois denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment when it fired an employee who traveled with her mother to Las Vegas in order to “care for” her terminally ill mom. It turns out that the mother who lived with the employee won a “make a wish”-type grant for terminally ill individuals and that she chose to go to Las Vegas as her “wish.” The mother suffered from a number of conditions including congestive heart failure and diabetes. Her daughter was her primary caregiver. Yet there were no plans to receive any treatment while in Las Vegas. The employee requested time off, but through some confusion in making that request it was never clear that the time off was for FMLA leave. Further, there was never a submission of FMLA paperwork that would have established the “needed to care for” reason for the employee’s leave.
Leave Is Denied – The Employer’s Gamble
The employer denied the leave, but the employee left anyway believing that it would be granted in the future. The employee then returned one day later that her requested leave (due to a fire at the Las Vegas hotel), and when she showed up for work, she was fired for unauthorized absences. She filed suit for interference with her FMLA rights. And now, with the court’s denial of her employer’s motion for summary judgment, she and her employer will be rolling the dice with the jury.
Lessons for Employers
It was a risky move for the employer to fire the employee, especially in light of the terminal condition of the mother regardless of the technical absence of formal FMLA notice. There was a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding between the employee and her employer. Because of those messy facts, the denial of the employer’s summary judgment motion was appropriate. Nevertheless, employers can learn from this case:
- FMLA leave that is “needed to care for” a family member is very broad and can even involve “vacation destinations” if the conditions are met.
- The employee’s mere providing psychological support, comfort and assurance to the family member with a serious health condition is sufficient.
- Employers should not assume that just because there is an exotic destination involved, it’s not for a legitimate “needed to care for” purpose.
- Employers should insist on a health care provider’s certification on the “need to care for” the family member.
- Actual medical treatment at the destination is not required.
If you have any questions, please contact Steve Lyman at slyman@hallrender.com or your regular Hall Render attorney.
