Last fall, Disney World and Disneyland announced major changes to their longstanding program for assisting guests with disabilities.
Previously, people with a disability, along with their family members, were given special passes to avoid long waits and enter the front of the line at a ride or attraction at Disney theme parks. Disney’s special access program was changed, however, after widespread reports of able-bodied families hiring disabled people to pose as family members so that the group could jump to the front of the line.
Recently, an Illinois employer contended it was facing a problem similar to the Disney theme parks: In Ballard v. Chicago Park District, an employer argued that the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) must be read narrowly to avoid employees helping themselves to FMLA leave “pleasure trips” simply by bringing a seriously ill family member along on personal vacations. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument and held that care provided to a seriously ill family member, even when traveling away from the home, is within the meaning of the FMLA.
The employee in this case, Beverly Ballard, lived with and cared for her mother, Sarah, who suffered with end‐stage congestive heart failure. With the help of a hospice social worker and funding from a nonprofit organization that provided opportunities for terminally ill adults, Sarah was given a six-day trip to Las Vegas. Beverly requested leave from her employer, Chicago Park District, to travel with her mother. Her request was denied, although the record was unclear when the denial occurred. Beverly accompanied her mother to Las Vegas and several months later, she was terminated for the unauthorized absences accumulated during her trip.
Beverly filed suit under the FMLA. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The central premise of the family-care provisions of the FMLA is that employees are entitled to unpaid leave “[i]n order to care for” a family member with a “serious health condition.” The employer did not dispute that Sarah suffered from a serious health condition; rather, it argued that Beverly was not needed to provide care for her mother as Sarah was not receiving ongoing medical treatment on the trip. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, noting that the FMLA “speaks in terms of ‘care,’ not ‘treatment.’” Because Beverly was helping Sarah with her basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs, Beverly was providing physical care to her mother, satisfying the FMLA. Moreover, the Court remarked, the FMLA does not limit the location of where such care could be provided.
As to the employer’s concern that Beverly requested FMLA leave in order to take a free pleasure trip, and not in order to care for her mother, the Court indicated that the FMLA already allows an employer to require a certification from a health care provider prior to the employee taking leave. In discounting the employer’s allegations that Beverly’s trip was opportunistic, the Court also pointed to the fact that Sarah was receiving hospice and palliative care prior to the trip.
In light of this case, employers should continue to carefully review all FMLA requests for time-off to allow an employee to go on a trip with a covered relative with a serious health condition.
The Eastern Pennsylvania Employment Log (EPELog) is a publication of the KingSpry Employment Law Practice Group. Jeffrey T. Tucker, Esquire, is our editor-in-chief. EPELog is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
