Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc., 632 F.3d 788

Tayag was terminated by Lahey Clinic Hospital after a seven-week, unapproved leave to accompany her husband on a spiritual healing trip; leave was treated as vacation, not FMLA-protected care.
Rhomeo Tayag suffers serious medical conditions; Tayag had previously provided caregiving during prior leaves under Lahey's FMLA policy.
Lahey approved short leaves for Tayag historically, but denied the August 2006 extended FMLA leave after receiving mixed medical certifications.
Two physicians provided conflicting assessments: Tayag’s cardiologist stated Rhomeo was not incapacitated and seven weeks not justified; Dr. Dong’s August 2006 certificate listed coronary artery disease but gave insufficient justification for seven weeks.
Lahey required an FMLA medical certification for intermittent leave; the employer designated a second health care provider for a potential third opinion, which was not pursued due to Tayag’s departure and lack of contact information.
District court granted summary judgment for Lahey; First Circuit reviews de novo and evaluates whether the trip is protected under FMLA and whether retaliation claim survives.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the seven-week trip qualifies as FMLA-protected leave	Tayag argues the trip was to care for a spouse with a serious condition and constitutes protected intermittent leave	Lahey contends the trip was a non-medical pilgrimage and not protected FMLA care	Not protected FMLA leave; healing pilgrimage alone not care under FMLA
Whether the termination was retaliation for requesting or taking FMLA leave	Tayag asserts discharge was retaliation for requesting/ taking leave	Lahey asserts discharge was for taking improper leave, not protected leave or protected request	Retaliation claim fails because leave was not protected and pretext not shown for discharge
Whether the certification process supported denial of the seven-week leave	Certification supported by doctors; leave should be allowed	Certifications were inconsistent/inadequate for seven weeks; board could seek second opinion	Lahey justified denial due to deficient certification and lack of a basis for seven weeks; third opinion process not completed

Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2005) (support for psychological comfort as care not extending to long trips)
Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005) (interpretation of FMLA protections for spouse care)
Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) (retaliation analysis under FMLA claims)
Stoops v. One Call Communications, Inc., 141 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 1998) (validity of certification and need for second opinion)
Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2005) (psychological comfort not extending to long non-medical trips)
Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Vladeck, 938 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Minn. 1996) (Christian Science exemption context and Medicare/Medicaid discussion)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (preservation of constitutional arguments on appeal)