|
| FMLA: A Long (and Costly) Road Home |
| Those requesting Family & Medical Leave in order “to care for” an immediate family member are required to assist in both the (1) physical and (2) the psychological aspects of the recovery program. Providing one element of care without the other invalidates the leave request, says the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In reviewing the circumstances surrounding FMLA leave, the court will consider whether the employee consistently remained “in close and continuing proximity” to the ailing family member. In Tellis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., appeals court found this element to be lacking. As a result, it ruled that Charles Tellis could not claim FMLA leave when going cross-country to retrieve a car for his pregnant wife. Tellis worked for Alaska Airlines as a maintenance mechanic in its Seattle facilities. On July 4, 2000 Tellis requested time off to help care for his pregnant wife who was suffering from certain complications. In response, his supervisor suggested that Tellis apply for FMLA leave and directed him to contact the company’s benefits office in order to complete the necessary paperwork. Unfortunately, Tellis did not follow his supervisor’s instructions. Instead of taking the steps necessary to apply for FMLA leave, Tellis submitted a vacation & holiday leave request. The next day, however, Tellis did contact the benefits office and requested FMLA leave. The office sent him the appropriate forms for completion. On July 6th, Tellis’ car broke down. He decided to replace the broken car with a car that he owned in Atlanta. After flying cross-country, he drove back to Seattle on July 10th. During his absence, his wife gave birth to a baby girl. Tellis was scheduled to return to work on July 11th. When he failed to report, the airline attempted to contact him without success. Tellis’ absence continued for a week. Based on this delinquency, Tellis was terminated. Tellis brought suit against the airline for wrongful dismissal in violation of his FMLA rights. Under the federal Family & Medical Leave Act, “employers of 50 or more must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:
Tellis argued that he qualified for FMLA leave since the retrieval of the family car provided psychological reassurance to his wife regarding the reliability of future transportation. According to Tellis, FLMA leave is appropriate here since he continued to phone his wife, providing her with moral support and psychological comfort. The lower court disagreed, granting the airline’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that the cross-country trip to Atlanta to retrieve the car did not meet the required level of care necessary to sustain a valid FMLA request. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the lower court’s ruling. In making this determination, the court noted, “Tellis’s activities cannot be considered ‘caring for’ his wife. Instead of participating in his wife’s ongoing treatment by staying with her, he left her for almost four days, Tellis claims his trip provided psychological reassurance to wife, but he did not travel to Atlanta to participate in his wife’s medical care.” While having a workable car may be an indirect benefit – Tellis' conduct constitutes an unprotected activity under FMLA. “Close and continuing proximity to the ill family member” is required. Susan McComb, J.D., SPHR August 2005 |
|
|