In Martin v. Brevard County Public Schools , No. 6:05-cv-971-Orl-22KRS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9910 (M.D.Fla. Fb. 13, 2007), Anthony Martin was approved for FMLA leave from May 7 through June 30 to care for his granddaughter, Hannah. Martin was needed to care for Hannah while his daughter, Brittany, was off on army reserve duty. Brittany was a single mother of Hannah. Martin advised Brevard County that he would be standing in loco parentis to Hannah during the leave as he would be providing a home, transportation, food, money for expense, and health insurance. Brevard County approved the leave.
Martin was on a performance improvement plan (PIP) at the time he requested leave. Although his FMLA leave was approved, Martin was told that if he took FMLA leave and was unable to fulfill the requirement of the PIP his employment contract would not be renewed. Plaintiff asked to work on an intermittent schedule to address the requirements of this PIP. The County refused. Martin took the leave as scheduled.
Brittany was never called to active service. Martin was, in essence, a stay-at-home parent for Hannah, bonding and caring for her to prepare them both for Brittany's anticipated absence, if it occurred. Brittany did not deviate from the schedule she maintained before Martin took leave. Martin also took care of Hannah while Brittany was at her 3-day Army Reserve drills.
The County did not renew Martin's employment contract based on his failure to meet the requirements of the PIP. Martin sued alleging that the County's actions constituted impermissible interference with and retaliation his FMLA rights. The County moved for summary judgment.
The County argued that Martin could not maintain his civil suit because he was not entitled to FMLA leave. Martin, the County argued, was not an in loco parentis parent to his granddaughter. Martin did not have "day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child" as required to be an FMLA-covered in loco parentis parent for purposes of FMLA leave. The Court agreed.
The Court cited Maryland law to determine whether Martin stood in loco parentis to Hannah during his absence on leave. The Maryland Court explained in loco parentis as follows:
The term "in loco parentis, according to is generally accepted common law meaning, refers to a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary to legal adoption. It embodies the two ideas of assuming parental status and discharging the parental duties....The key in determining whether the relationship is found is the intention of the person allegedly in loco parentis to assume the status a parent toward the child. The intent to assume such parental status can be inferred from the acts of the parties. Other factors which are considered in determining whether in loco parentis status has been assumed are (1) he age of the child; (2) the degree to which the child is defendant on the person claiming to be standing in loco parentis; (3) the amount of support, if any, provided; and (4) the extent to which duties commonly associated with parenthood are exercised....
The definitions of t the term "i loco parentis" are often context specific, and no court-or regulation- has defined the term exhaustively. For some purposes, the presence of a biological parent in the home may foreclose another from holding the status of "in loco parentis." But for others ...the presence of [a biological parent] in the home is not fatal to Plaintiff's claim.
Here, Martin took FMLA leave because his daughter was going to be deployed overseas and, as a result , he would have had to take care of Hannah. However, Brittany was never deployed. Plaintiff cared for Hannah only when Brittany was at school or away on weekend training for the Army; both routine activities she did before she received notice that she was supposed to be deployed. Plaintiff financially supported both Brittany and her daughter before and during the period he took FMLA leave. According to the Court, "the actual household dynamic" had not changed. Brittany maintained the same schedule she had before Martin went on leave. "The simple fact is that nothing changed in Plaintiff's day-to-day life. Plaintiff, the Court found, "did not stand in loco parentis to Hannah. The Court awarded summary judgment to the employer dismissing Martin's FMLA claim.
Comment: For this court, an in loco parentis relationship requires more than simply providing day care during short periods of time the biological or legal parent is out of the house. Rather, an in loco parentis relationship requires a change in the "household dynamic" or relationship between the employee taking leave, the parent, and the child. The Court compared what was occurring both before and after the leave to make this determination.
Note that, technically, Martin met the definition of an in loco parentis parent. At all time he had he had financially responsibility for Hannah. He was financially responsible for both Brittany and Hannah before and during leave. When Brittany was out, including her 3-day absence to attend Army Reserve training, Martin also had day-to-day responsibility for Hannah's well-being. Even though Martin met both requirements for an in loco parentis relationships during these short absences, the Court nevertheless found that the situation did not rise to the level of an in loco parentis relationship for purposes of FMLA leave. If Brittany went overseas that would likely have change the circumstances sufficiently for Martin to be considered in loco parentis to Hannah.
Note also that the presence of the biological or legal parent in the household is not determinative of whether an employee may be acting in loco parentis to a child for purposes of FMLA leave. Every situation will have to be judged on its own merits. This makes sense. For example, a biological parent of a minor child who is medically incapacitated to the point that they are unable to financially support and provide day-to-day care for the child may be in the house at the same time as the in loco parentis employee.
Comments