741 F.3d 838
7th Cir.2014Background
- Beverly Ballard was a Chicago Park District employee and primary caregiver for her terminally ill mother, Sarah, who received hospice care for end-stage congestive heart failure.
- Sarah arranged a six-day end-of-life trip to Las Vegas funded by a nonprofit; Ballard requested unpaid leave to accompany and care for her mother during the trip.
- The Park District denied the leave request (disputes about notice aside); Ballard traveled anyway and continued performing physical and psychological caregiving duties, including obtaining medication after a hotel fire.
- The Park District terminated Ballard for unauthorized absences; Ballard sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), claiming leave to "care for" a family member with a serious health condition (29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C)).
- The district court denied summary judgment for the employer; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, focusing on whether providing care away from home can qualify as "care for" under the FMLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to accompany and provide physical/psychological care to a terminally ill parent while traveling away from home falls within FMLA's "to care for" provision | Ballard: "Care" includes physical and psychological care provided wherever needed; location is irrelevant | Park Dist.: "Care" for away-from-home travel must be tied to participation in ongoing medical treatment | The Seventh Circuit held that "care" under §2612(a)(1)(C) includes physical and psychological care provided away from home and need not be linked to ongoing medical treatment |
| Whether FMLA's text or DOL regulations limit "care" to a particular location | Ballard: statute and regs do not impose a geographic restriction on "care" | Park Dist.: regulations/examples suggest focus on home/inpatient contexts, implying a location-based limit | Court: statutory text and DOL regs define care expansively (basic medical, hygienic, nutritional needs; psychological comfort) without a geographic limitation |
| Whether "care" requires participation in ongoing medical treatment | Ballard: definition of "care" in regs covers assistance with basic needs regardless of active treatment | Park Dist.: precedent (other circuits) requires some participation in ongoing treatment for leave to qualify | Court: declined to adopt an ongoing-treatment requirement; regs and statutory scheme do not require active treatment for "care" eligibility |
| Employer's concern about abuse of FMLA for recreational travel with ill relatives | Ballard: record shows trip was part of hospice end-of-life planning and care was provided; employers can require medical certification | Park Dist.: allowing such leave invites opportunistic, non-medical leave-taking | Court: factual disputes aside, employer safeguards (certification) exist; policy concerns do not justify rewriting the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. City of Fort Wayne, 117 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 1997) (interpretive guidance on relying on administrative regulations)
- White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004) (same-words-in-statute interpretive presumption)
- Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2005) (held care requires participation in ongoing treatment)
- Marchisheck v. San Mateo Cnty., 199 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1999) (same ongoing-treatment interpretation)
- Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 632 F.3d 788 (1st Cir. 2011) (declined FMLA coverage for a ‘‘healing pilgrimage’’ absent medical-treatment connection)
- Gleischman Sumner Co. v. King, Weiser, Edelman & Bazar, 69 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1995) (judicial restraint against rewriting statutes)