(a) The medical certification provision that an employee is needed to care for a family member or covered servicemember encompasses both physical and psychological care. It includes situations where, for example, because of a serious health condition, the family member is unable to care for his or her own basic medical, hygienic, or nutritional needs or safety, or is unable to transport himself or herself to the doctor. The term also includes providing psychological comfort and reassurance which would be beneficial to a child, spouse or parent with a serious health condition who is receiving inpatient or home care.
(b) The term also includes situations where the employee may be needed to substitute for others who normally care for the family member or covered servicemember, or to make arrangements for changes in care, such as transfer to a nursing home. The employee need not be the only individual or family member available to care for the family member or covered servicemember.
(c) An employee's intermittent leave or a reduced leave schedule necessary to care for a family member or covered servicemember includes not only a situation where the condition of the family member or covered servicemember itself is intermittent, but also where the employee is only needed intermittently—such as where other care is normally available, or care responsibilities are shared with another member of the family or a third party. See §§ 825.202-825.205 for rules governing the use of intermittent or reduced schedule leave.
Notes of Decisions
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “‖ 29 C.F.R. § 825.124 (a). Even when these qualifying circumstances exist, employees cannot invoke rights under the FMLA if they fail to provide adequate notice of their need for leave.”
Pilger v. D.M. Bowman, Inc., 833 F. Supp. 2d 489 (D. Maryland 2011).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 825.124 (2009). “As the language of the statute and regulation make clear, the FMLA does not provide qualified leave to cover every family emergency.”
Tracy Wink v. Miller Compressing Co., 845 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2017).
“§ 2612 (a)(1), (a)(1)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 825.124 . Wink proved, and the jury determined, that the company had retaliated against her for asserting her FMLA right to take leave necessary to enable her to take care of her sick child for several hours two days a week.”
Gravel v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 230 F. Supp. 3d 430 (E.D. Pa. 2017).
“2012) (discussing “care for” as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 825.124 (a)). i. Adequacy of Notice “Even when these qualifying circumstances exist, employees cannot invoke rights under the FMLA if they fail to provide adequate notice.”
Miller v. State of Nebraska Dep't of Econ. Dev., 467 F. App'x 536 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “116 ) (defining “needed to care for” as including physical and psychological care where, because of a serious health condition, a family member is “unable to care for his or her own basic medical, hygienic, or nutritional needs or safety”).”
Ballard v. Chicago Park Dist., 741 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2014).
“The Department of Labor has amended its regulations since Ballard hied her lawsuit; the relevant passage can now be found, with minor modifications, at 29 C.F.R. § 825.124 . . Because this opinion creates a split between circuits, we circulated it in advance of publication to…”
Wegelin v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 909 F. Supp. 2d 421 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
“29 C.F.R. § 825.124 (emphasis added). Reading Hospital argues that Wegelin’s sole criterion for a change in daycare was finding a daycare that would be open after 5:30 p.”
Schaar v. United States Steel Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2019).
· cites it 3× “The FMLA does not define the term “to care for,” but Defendant quotes the Department of Labor’s implementing regulations defining the term, 29 C.F.R. §825.124 (a). ECF No. 13 at PageID.”
Trail v. Util. Trailer Mfg. Co. (W.D. Va. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.124 (b). Notably, “[t]he employee need not be the only individual or family member available to care for the family member.”
Newman v. HARC, Inc. (D. Conn. 2022).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 825.124 . Once an employer requests a certification, that certification must be “complete and sufficient.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.