Employee's FMLA Leave Request to Care for Grandfather Triggers Further Employer Inquiry: Second Circuit | Practical Law

Employee's FMLA Leave Request to Care for Grandfather Triggers Further Employer Inquiry: Second Circuit | Practical Law

In Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires an employer to request additional information from an employee who requested FMLA leave to care for a grandparent with whom the employee had an in loco parentis relationship.

Employee's FMLA Leave Request to Care for Grandfather Triggers Further Employer Inquiry: Second Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Law stated as of 14 Feb 2017 • USA (National/Federal)
In Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires an employer to request additional information from an employee who requested FMLA leave to care for a grandparent with whom the employee had an in loco parentis relationship.
On February 9, 2017, in Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an employee's request to take FMLA leave to care for a grandparent was sufficient notice that the employee may be entitled to qualifying leave and obligated the employer to request additional information from the employee to determine whether the FMLA applied. The court further held that the employee did not have to inform the employer of his in loco parentis relationship with the grandparent at the time of the employee's leave request, and that the employer was not entitled to deny the leave request without first requesting additional information. ( (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2017).)

Background

Frantz Coutard was employed by Municipal Credit Union (MCU) beginning in July 2011. In January 2013, Coutard requested FMLA leave to care for his grandfather, who suffered from several chronic medical conditions and had been hospitalized with bronchitis. At the time of his leave request, Coutard did not inform MCU that:
  • His grandfather had raised Coutard since age four.
  • As a child, Coutard had an in loco parentis relationship with his grandfather.
MCU denied Coutard's FMLA leave request, informing him that FMLA leave does not apply to grandparents. Although his leave request was denied, Coutard remained absent from work from January 23, 2013 until February 4, 2013, when MCU terminated his employment due to perceived job abandonment.
Coutard sued MCU in federal district court alleging FMLA interference and violation of his FMLA rights. MCU moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to MCU on all claims, finding that:
  • MCU was not obligated to inform Coutard that leave to care for grandparents is covered under the FMLA if an in loco parentis relationship exists.
  • Coutard:
    • was obligated to provide MCU with all necessary information about his leave request; and
    • provided insufficient notice to MCU by failing to disclose the in loco parentis relationship with his grandfather.
Coutard appealed.

Outcome

The Second Circuit:
  • Vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to MCU.
  • Held that when an employee requests FMLA leave that is not foreseeable:
    • an employee only must provide the employer with enough information for the employer to "reasonably determine whether FMLA may apply to the leave request" (29 C.F.R. § 825.303 (b)). An employee does not have to provide the employer with all of the information it needs to definitively determine that the requested leave is covered by the FMLA; and
    • an FMLA-covered employer has an obligation to request from an employee any additional information it needs to determine whether the employee is entitled to FMLA leave.
  • Denied Coutard's partial summary judgment motion and remanded.
The Second Circuit noted that:
  • An employee making an FMLA interference claim must establish that:
    • the employee is an eligible employee under the FMLA;
    • the employer is covered by the FMLA;
    • the employee was entitled to take leave under the FMLA;
    • the employee gave notice to the employer of his intent to take leave; and
    • the employee was entitled to FMLA benefits.
    (See Graziadio v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 817 F.3d 415, 424 (2d Cir. 2016).)
  • Based on the FMLA's regulations regarding the employee's and employer's respective notice responsibilities surrounding an FMLA leave request:
    • an FMLA-eligible employee must only provide sufficient information for the employer to determine that the leave may qualify under the FMLA; and
    • if the employee does that, then the employer must specify any additional information it requires from the employee to determine whether the employee is entitled to the leave.
    (See 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b).)
  • This conclusion about what is sufficient notice to request FMLA leave is consistent with the Third Circuit's holding in Lichtenstein v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which held that an employee provides sufficient notice to an employer under the FMLA if:
    • the employee's notice "indicates reasonably that the FMLA may apply"; and
    • the employer does not request additional information.
    (691 F.3d 294, 303-04 (3d Cir. 2012).)
  • An individual who had an in loco parentis relationship with an employee when the employee was under age 18 falls within the definition of "parent" under the FMLA (see 29 U.S.C. § 2611(7)).
The Second Circuit found that:
  • Coutard was not required to give MCU all of the necessary details about his leave request, including that he had an in loco parentis relationship with his grandfather.
  • Coutard's request for leave to care for his grandfather was clearly leave that "may" qualify for FMLA protection.
  • Instead of denying Coutard's leave request, MCU was obligated to request additional information to determine whether Coutard was entitled to FMLA leave.
  • Coutard's partial summary judgment motion was not granted because of unresolved factual issues, including whether:
    • his grandfather's health condition fell within the FMLA; and
    • his grandfather actually raised Coutard in loco parentis.

Practical Implications

The Second Circuit's decision in Coutard illustrates that once an employee expresses a reasonable need to take a leave for a seriously ill family member, and the leave may be covered by the FMLA, the employer assumes the obligation to elicit more details from the employee to ascertain if the employee is eligible for FMLA leave.
Employers should:
  • Exercise caution when considering FMLA requests.
  • Consider the possibility of in loco parentis relationships.
  • Refrain from categorically denying leave without requesting additional information if there is any possibility the FMLA may apply.