6th Circuit teaches employers an important FMLA lesson on caregiving and in loco parentis

Imagine being told by your employer that you have to choose between your terminally ill sister and you job. That's what happened to Celestia Chapman, a finance manager at Midwestern Auto Group.

Chapman requested time off under the FMLA care for her sister, who was dying of cancer and unable to care for her own basic needs, including feeding, hygiene, and taking medications. MAG told her that the FMLA did not provide leave to care for an adult sibling. When Chapman ran out of PTO and stopped coming to work, MAG fired her.

Chapman sued, and her case landed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals following the district court's dismissal based on the plain language of the FMLA, which on its face does not cover the caregiving of siblings, only spouses, children, or parents. But it also covers someone you're acting as a parent to (the fancy Latin term is "in loco parentis"). 

Under the FMLA, in loco parentis refers to a relationship in which an individual assumes the role and responsibilities of a parent, even if there is no biological or legal relationship. The factors upon which the DOL relies in determining in loco parentis under the FMLA include the following:

• The extend of day-to-day responsibilities of care;
• The amount of financial support provided;
• The intent to assume a parental role, demonstrated through actions and responsibilities;
• The dependency of the individual receiving care on the caregiver; and 
• The extent of caregiving activities, such as providing food and shelter; assisting with hygiene and daily needs; and offering emotional and financial support.

Chapman argued that her caregiving role for her sister fit the bill. The 6th Circuit didn't say she was right, but it did say, "Hmmm, maybe," and kicked the case back to the lower court to figure it out.

This case is a giant flashing neon sign pointing out how outdated the FMLA can be. Families don't fit into neat little boxes anymore—if they ever did. For employers, here's the takeaway: your policies should work for real humans, not just for the tidy definitions in a decades-old law. And if you're relying on technicalities like, "Oh, siblings don’t count," well … good luck with your morale and retention, and maybe even your lawsuits.

Does this mean Chapman will win her case? Who knows. But it does mean courts are finally being forced to think about caregiving roles that don't fit the FMLA's narrow mold.