The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) offers job-protected, unpaid time off to eligible U.S. employees for various family and medical reasons, including pregnancy, childbirth, adoption, and personal or family illness. Under the statute, eligible employees are permitted to take FMLA leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition. However, the law restricts the definition of “family member” to a parent, spouse, or child—excluding siblings.
This limitation became a point of contention in 2019 when Celestia Chapman requested continuous FMLA leave from her employer, Brentlinger Enterprises, operating as the Midwestern Auto Group (MAG), to care for her adult sister who was dying of cancer in another state. MAG, a luxury car dealership in Columbus, Ohio, denied the request, citing the restrictions of the FMLA. Chapman had already exhausted her accrued paid time off while traveling to Kentucky to care for her sister in her final days, performing tasks akin to those a parent might provide for a dependent child. As her sister’s illness progressed, Chapman provided daily care, including cleaning, shopping, cooking, feeding, toileting, changing diapers, bathing, administering medication, managing bills, and transporting her sister to medical appointments. When Chapman ran out of paid leave, MAG granted her a brief unpaid leave of absence and adjusted her schedule. However, the ongoing challenges of balancing work and caregiving, compounded by travel and limited caregiver support, led to attendance and tardiness issues. Eventually, MAG terminated Chapman by text message. Her sister passed away two days later.
Despite these heartbreaking circumstances, MAG contested Chapman’s unemployment insurance claim, arguing job abandonment, and mishandled her benefits conversion. When Chapman threatened to file a lawsuit for FMLA interference and related claims, MAG responded by asserting that siblings were not covered under the FMLA and that any legal action would be frivolous.
Undeterred, Chapman filed a lawsuit, asserting that the FMLA allows leave to care for someone functioning in an “in loco parentis” role, meaning a person who acts as a parent to a child, even if not biologically related. Chapman argued that, at the time of her request, she was performing parental duties for her incapacitated sister, which should have qualified her for FMLA leave. However, the trial court rejected her argument, ruling that the FMLA required proof of a parent-child relationship before the sister’s incapacity. Since Chapman had not served as her sister’s guardian or caretaker before her sister’s illness, the court determined that Chapman could not claim an “in loco parentis” status.
The Sixth Circuit, however, disagreed with the trial court’s narrow interpretation of the statute. The Court found that the FMLA does not specify when an “in loco parentis” relationship must begin, whether before or after the age of 18, or even before a person becomes incapacitated. The Sixth Circuit instead looked to the common law meaning of the term, which does not impose such temporal restrictions. The Court concluded that by including “in loco parentis” relationships in the scope of FMLA protections, Congress intended to include individuals outside the traditional nuclear family—such as an employee who assumes a parental role for a critically ill dependent relative. The Court pointed out that previous Sixth Circuit decisions did not restrict in loco parentis relationships to those formed during childhood.
The Court’s analysis emphasized that the key question is whether the employee has assumed responsibility for providing care beyond what would be expected of a sibling, rather than when the relationship began. As the Court stated, “reading the FMLA against the backdrop of the common law, we conclude that in loco parentis relationships can form between adults, including adults who also happen to be siblings….[T]he ‘child’ in the in loco parentis relationship need not be a minor at the time the relationship forms, have developed a debilitating condition as a minor, or have developed that condition before the relationship formed.” As a result, the Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Chapman had intended to form a quasi-parental relationship with her dying sister.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling introduces new considerations for employers who previously believed that the FMLA’s definition of family relationships was straightforward. Employers in the Sixth Circuit (which covers Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) must now exercise caution before automatically denying FMLA leave requests, particularly when employees present information that suggests their caregiving responsibilities go beyond the typical sibling role. Our DC employment are here to help if employees have assumed a parental role.