Employees Entitled To FMLA Coverage for Siblings in Sixth Circuit

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that employees may be entitled to Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) coverage to care for their siblings.

Celestia Chapman, a finance manager at Brentlinger Enterprises, requested FMLA leave to care for her terminally ill sister. Her employer denied the request on the ground that the statute does not cover leave to care for an adult sibling.

When Chapman did not show up for work, she was terminated.

Chapman sued, asserting claims of FMLA interference and retaliation, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Ohio state law prohibitions on associational disability discrimination.

The district court granted summary judgment to Brentlinger on all claims, but the federal appellate panel reversed.

First considering Chapman’s FMLA interference claim, the court acknowledged that siblings are not on the list of relatives that the statute allows employees to take unpaid leave to care for.

“However, the FMLA permits employees to take leave to care for an ‘in loco parentis’ parent or child,” the court noted. By its plain text, the FMLA covers more than just biological and adoptive families and recognizes a special relationship where one person acts in loco parentis to a dependent person.

The court also looked to FMLA caselaw and Department of Labor (DOL) regulations and guidance before turning to the common law definition of in loco parentis. The term isn’t limited to minors, the court said, analogizing to adoption.

“[R]eading the FMLA against the backdrop of the common law, we conclude that in loco parentis relationships can form between adults, including adults who also happen to be siblings,” the court wrote. “Contrary to the district court’s reading, the ‘child’ in the in loco parentis relationship need not be a minor at the time the relationship forms, have developed a debilitating condition as a minor, or have developed that condition before the relationship formed. Indeed, under the common law, a debilitating condition was not a requirement at all. Accordingly, an in loco parentis relationship could have formed between Chapman and [her sister].”

The court then turned to whether such a relationship did form between the siblings, emphasizing that the touchstone of the inquiry is intention and identifying several factors to help determine whether a person intended to assume parental status over another adult.

“We have looked to direct evidence of how the two adults regard one another, both when communicating to each other and describing their relationship externally,” the court explained. “In examining indirect evidence, we have asked whether the loco parentis parent (1) is in close physical proximity to the adult loco parentis child; (2) assumes responsibility to support them; (3) exercises control or has rights over them; (4) and has a close emotional or familial bond with them, akin to that of an adult child.”

The list was not exclusive, no single factor was dispositive and the factors should not be weighed like a math problem, the court added.

The Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer on Chapman’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims, as well as her ADA and Ohio law associational disability discrimination claims, and remanded the case to the district court to consider in the first instance whether Chapman had an in loco parentis relationship with her sister.

To read the opinion in Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises, click .

Why it matters: The Sixth Circuit worked its way through the FMLA and its regulations, case law on the statute, DOL guidance and the common law definition of in loco parentis to conclude that the FMLA may provide leave to care for a sibling if an in loco parentis relationship exists. The court also provided several factors for a court to consider when determining whether a person intended to assume parental status over another adult.