What happened. “Angela,” a clerk at Lahey Clinic Hospital, requested a 7-week vacation, because her husband, “Ben,” was going to have hip and eye surgery. After that request was denied, Angela asked for FMLA leave to care for Ben after he had a cardiac angioplasty. Lahey instructed Angela to provide medical certification from Ben’s cardiologist. Instead, Angela submitted a medical record of the angioplasty; Lahey informed her that this was insufficient. Angela then gave Lahey a note from Ben’s doctor stating that Ben had liver and kidney problems. Lahey told Angela that this note did not support FMLA leave related to the angioplasty.

Nonetheless, Angela and Ben left for a 7-week trip to the Philippines. While there, Ben attended a Catholic faith healing ministry, but he and Angela also visited family and friends. In the meantime, Lahey received the FMLA certification form from the cardiologist indicating that leave was unnecessary. Lahey then discharged Angela for taking unexcused absences.

Angela sued in federal district court alleging that Lahey interfered with her FMLA rights. Lahey conceded that Ben had a serious health condition under the FMLA. However, it argued that the trip did not qualify for FMLA leave, because Catholic priests are not healthcare providers, and Ben sought “miraculous healing” rather than medical care. Angela, on the other hand, asserted that without her care and psychological support, Ben could not have attended the ministry which he believed would improve his health.

What the court said. The court noted that other jurisdictions have found that FMLA does not apply if the seriously ill family member is not getting actual treatment, or the employee is not providing direct psychological support for the family member, e.g., staying at a hospital where the family member is being treated. The court then held that even if caring for an ill spouse on a trip for nonmedical religious reasons qualified for FMLA because of its psychological benefits, Angela’s claim failed, because almost half of the trip was spent visiting friends, family, and local churches.

Taking a vacation with a seriously ill family member is not protected under the FMLA, even if caring for the family member is an “incidental consequence” of the trip. Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 08-10727-PBS (1/6/10).

Point to remember: Employers can deny FMLA leave if the employee fails to provide proper certification. Moreover, a vacation with a seriously ill family member is not covered by the FMLA, even if the employee provides care for the family member.

This article is provided to members of the Northeast Human Resources Association
as a member benefit, compliments of Business and Legal Resources, Inc.