Brief Fact Summary. A single mother was fired from her employment after taking a day off of work to care for her sick child. She brought suit claiming the employer violated the FMLA by terminating her.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A FMLA violation requires a two pronged inquiry to find a serious health condition: a period of incapacity for more than three days; and subsequent continued, supervised treatment relating to the same condition.
Issue. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment for Holland based on its finding that Caldwell’s termination did not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)?
Held. There was at least a question of fact as to whether Caldwell’s son’s illness constituted a serious condition causing incapacity for more than three days and required subsequent treatment as required under FMLA regulations.
The FMLA allows eligible employees to take up to twelve weeks of leave for serious health conditions that afflict their immediate family members. A serious health condition requires inpatient care or continuing treatment. Continuing treatment is a two prong test consisting of incapacity for more than three consecutive calendar days followed by subsequent treatment or further incapacity.
Generally incapacity is described as an inability to work or attend school, but this is inapplicable to Caldwell’s three year old son. Factors that a fact finder may consider in such cases include whether the child participated in his daily routines, was particularly difficult to care for, or if a daycare facility would have allowed the child to attend sessions.
Caldwell averred that the ear infection required treatment for more than three consecutive days, and medical records show that it was a persistent medical condition. Therefore, the period of incapacity may be measured over the entire time he was suffering from and being treated for the illness. Even if the child was not incapacitated prior to surgery, a period of incapacity occurred after surgery. There is also a genuine issue of fact regarding subsequent treatment, considering the child’s later treatment and surgery.
An employer does not avoid liability by discharging an employee who takes leave in order to seek treatment for a condition that is later held to be covered by the FMLA.View Full Point of Law