The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an Administrative Interpretation (AI) clarifying its opinion that employees are entitled to take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for birth, bonding or to care for the child of a domestic partner or same-sex domestic partner, as well as other children for whom an employee has responsibility for day-to-day care or financial responsibility, even though the employee has no biological or legal relationship with the child. According to the DOL, the AI was issued in response to numerous inquiries from employers regarding when an employee with no legal relationship to a child is considered to be standing “in loco parentis” under the FMLA and, accordingly, entitled to leave. (The AI does not address an employee’s entitlement to take military-related leave under the FMLA, which is governed by different definitions.)

Although the DOL states that it is clarifying the definition of when an employee is considered to stand “in loco parentis,” this is the first time the agency has specifically stated that otherwise covered employees are entitled to take FMLA leave to care for the children of same-sex domestic partners.

Background

The FMLA allows an eligible employee to take up to 12 weeks of leave for the birth or placement of a child, to care for a newborn or newly placed child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition. The FMLA defines a “son or daughter” as a “biological, adopted or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.”

The AI explains that Congress intended the definition of “son or daughter” to reflect the reality that many children in the Unites States today do not live in traditional “nuclear” families with their biological father and mother. Congress further stated that the definition was intended to be construed to ensure that an employee who has day-to-day responsibility for caring for a child is entitled to leave even if the employee does not have a biological or legal relationship to the child. Accordingly, Congress included the term “in loco parentis,” which is defined as “in the place of the parent” within the definition of “son or daughter.” The key in determining whether someone is “in loco parentis” is the intention of the person to assume the status of parent toward a child.

Interpretation

The DOL stated that whether an employee stands “in loco parentis” to a child is a fact issue dependent on multiple factors including:

• the age of the child;
• the degree to which the child is dependent on the person claiming to be standing “in loco parentis”;
• the amount of support, if any, provided; and
• the extent to which duties commonly associated with parenthood are exercised.

Further, the FMLA regulations define “in loco parentis” as including those with day-to- day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child. The AI interprets this regulation to require either day-to-day responsibilities for care or responsibility for financial support, but states that an employee is not required to show both factors to be considered standing “in loco parentis” for a child.

Thus, the AI states that employees with no legal or biological relationship to a child may nonetheless stand “in loco parentis” to a child and be entitled FMLA leave. Examples of persons who might fit the definition of “in loco parentis” include:

• an employee raising a child with the biological parent;
• same sex partners raising a child where the employee has no legal or biological relationship with the child;
• an employee who requests leave to bond with the adopted child of a same sex- partner; and
• a grandparent or other relative who has taken on the responsibility to raise a child but has not legally adopted the child.

It should be noted that the fact that a child has biological parents does not prevent a finding that the child is the “son or daughter” of an employee who lacks a legal relationship with the child because “neither the statute nor the regulations restrict the number of parents a child may have under the FMLA.” However, an employee who cares for a child while the child’s parents are on vacation would not be considered to be “in loco parentis” to the child. According to the Administrator, an employer who is not sure whether the employee is entitled to leave as standing “in loco parentis” should be satisfied with a simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists.

Employers’ Bottom Line

Whether an employee’s relationship to a child is covered under the FMLA must be analyzed on a case by case basis. The fact that an employee provides either day-to-day care or financial support may be sufficient to establish an “in loco parentis” relationship where the employee intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the broad interpretation the DOL gives this term and carefully analyze every request under the FMLA for leave to care for a child.

Effective January 16, 2009, the new FMLA rules will have an impact on companies in PEO relationships. In addition to other changes, these rules make FMLA compliance optional to employer with less than 50 employees.  At a high level, the new rules require that HR professionals master 10 key changes to the regulation:

• Military caregiver leave: Implements the requirement to expand FMLA protections for family members caring for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness incurred while on active duty. These family members are able to take up to 26 workweeks of leave in a 12-month period.
• Leave for “qualifying exigencies” for families of National Guard and Reserve members: The law allows families of National Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty to take FMLA job-protected leave to manage their affairs – “qualifying exigencies.” The rules define “qualifying exigencies” as situations involving: 1) short-notice deployment, 2) military events and related activities, 3) childcare and school activities, 4) financial and legal arrangements, 5) counseling, 6) rest and recuperation, 7) post-deployment activities and 8 ) additional activities where the employer and employee agree to the leave.
• New employer notice obligations: The final rules consolidate all employer notice requirements into a “one-stop” section of the regulations to clear up some conflicting provisions and time periods. Further, they clarify and strengthen employer notice requirements so employers can better inform employees about their FMLA rights and obligations, and allow for a smoother exchange of information between employers and employees.
• New employee notice rights: The final rules modify the current provision that had been interpreted to allow some employees to notify their employers of their need for FMLA leave up to two full business days after an absence, even if they could provide notice sooner. Under the final rules, the employee must follow the employer’s normal and customary call-in procedures, unless there are unusual circumstances.
• New medical certification process: The final rules recognize the advent of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the applicability of HIPAA’s medical privacy rule to communications between employers and employees’ health care providers. Responding to concerns about medical privacy, the rules add a requirement that limits who may contact the health care provider and bans an employee’s direct supervisor from making the contact.
• Clarification of waivers of rights: The DOL has finalized its longstanding position that employees may voluntarily settle their FMLA claims without court or departmental approval. However, prospective waivers of FMLA rights will continue to be prohibited.
• Definition of “serious health condition”: While the rules retain individual definitions of “serious health condition,” they add guidance on some regulatory matters. If an employee is taking leave involving more than three consecutive calendar days of incapacity plus two visits to a health care provider, the two visits must occur within 30 days of the period of incapacity. The rules define “periodic visits to a health care provider” for chronic serious health conditions as at least two visits to a health care provider per year.
• Clarification of light-duty FMLA rules: At least two courts have held that an employee uses up his or her 12-week FMLA leave while on a “light-duty” assignment. Under the final rules, time spent in light-duty work does not count against an employee’s FMLA leave entitlement, and the employee’s right to job restoration is held in abeyance during the light-duty period. If an employee is voluntarily doing light-duty work, he or she is not on FMLA leave.
• Application of FMLA leave to awarding perfect attendance awards: The final rules change how perfect attendance awards are treated to allow employers to deny a “perfect attendance” award to an employee who does not have perfect attendance because he or she took FMLA leave-but only if the employer treats employees taking non-FMLA leave in an identical way.
• Clarification of “leave stacking” rules: The updated rule contains technical changes to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide Inc. The court ruled that the regulation’s so-called “categorical” penalty (requiring an employer to provide 12 additional weeks of FMLA-protected leave after the employee had already taken 30 weeks of leave ) was inconsistent with the statutory limit of only 12 weeks of FMLA leave and contrary to the law’s remedial requirement that an employee demonstrate individual harm. The new rule removes these penalties and clarifies that if an employee suffers individual harm because the employer did not follow the notification rules, the employer may be liable.

The new employer notice obligation will be the most critical to follow.  There are new FMLA forms and deadlines for the notification.