You don’t have to offer FMLA leave to let worker travel with sick spouse — Business Management Daily: Free Reports on Human Resources, Employment Law, Office Management, Office Communication, Office Technology and Small Business Tax Business Management Daily
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google+

You don’t have to offer FMLA leave to let worker travel with sick spouse

Get PDF file

by on
in FMLA Guidelines,Human Resources

Courts keep pushing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) boundaries, letting employees take job-protected leave for circumstances other than physically providing care to a sick family member.

The case below shows one place where you can draw the line: letting an employee take FMLA leave to travel with his seriously ill spouse to a family funeral. Still, don't play it tough with all such "family caregiving" requests. It's safer to assume that FMLA covers such caregiving. Look at each case individually and, most importantly, require documentation certifying the serious health condition.

Finally, to avoid an FMLA squabble in the first place, let your bereavement or funeral leave policy handle such requests. No law says you must offer bereavement leave, but most companies do.

Recent case: On a Friday morning, a sheet-metal worker received a call from his seriously ill wife saying her father had died and they needed to attend the funeral in Mexico. The worker received permission to leave right away, but there was no agreement on the amount or type of leave granted.

Upon the worker's return several days later, the com-pany fired him, citing company policy that says employees can be fired if they miss work for three consecutive unexcused days. He sued under California's version of the FMLA.

A lower court said the employee had no case and a federal appeals court agreed. Reason: Coming to any other conclusion, the court said, would open up employers to FMLA-type claims every time a sick relative of an employee needed to travel. (Gradilla v. Ruskin Manufacturing, No. 01-56725, 9th Cir., 2003)

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: