DOL Expands FMLA Reach to Cover LGBT and Non-nuclear Families

In an Administrator’s Interpretation issued on June 22, 2010, The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has "clarified" the definition of “son or daughter” under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as it applies to an employee standing in loco parentis to a child. The result is to significantly expand the universe of caregivers entitled to FMLA leave. As DOL noted in its press release announcing the Administrator’s Interpretation: “the Labor Department's action today sends a clear message to workers and employers alike: All families, including LGBT families, are protected by the FMLA."

The FMLA entitles an employee up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the birth or placement of a ‘son or daughter,’ to bond with a newborn or newly placed ‘son or daughter,’ or to care for a ‘son or daughter’ with a serious health condition. Under the FMLA, the definition of “son or daughter” includes not only a biological or adopted child, but also a “foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.” Current FMLA regulations define in loco parentis as including those adults with day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child.

The  Administrator’s Interpretation goes further and provides that in loco parentis status must continue to reflect “the reality that many children in the United States today do not live in traditional ‘nuclear’ families.” The guidance indicates that  in loco parentis status is ultimately a factual issue dependent on multiple considerations, but is not limited at whether the person does stand in the role of a parent with financial responsibility. Rather, merely intending to assume parental responsibility, with or without financial support, may be sufficient.
For example, the DOL noted that neither the statute nor the regulations restrict the number of parents a child may have under the FMLA. And it gives the example of divorced and remarried parents whose child will be the ‘son or daughter’ of both the biological parents and the stepparents -- and all four adults would have equal rights to take FMLA leave to care for the child. Another example offered in the guidance advises that a same-sex partner -- who will share in the care for a child with the partner, but who directly lacks the legal relationship with child -- can still be entitled to leave because the employee stands in loco parentis to the child.

If an employer has questions about whether an employee’s relationship to a child is covered under FMLA, the employer may require the employee to provide reasonable documentation or statement of the family relationship. However, according to the DOL, a simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists is all that is needed in these situations. Although this Administrative Interpretation is not binding law, it represents the agency’s interpretation of the FMLA law and regulations which it is charged with enforcing and is likely to be given substantial deference.

Written by Paula Lyons

Supreme Court Allows Employer to Read Employees' Personal Text Messages

In the long awaited case of City of Ontario v Quon, the Supreme Court has ruled that city officials could search the personal text messages sent on text devices owned by the city and provided to certain employees for business use. As explained here, although the city is a government employer and the Court was able to resolve the case on fairly narrow Fourth Amendment grounds, the decision may well reflect the Court's inclination to give public and private employers alike broad discretion to monitor even personal communications made using a computer, pager or other device supplied by the employer.

New York Employers Beware: Task Force at Work!

The New York State Joine Enforcement Task Force on Employee Misclassification has been hard at work and reports that it has uncovered more than 12,000 instances of misclassification and recovered more than $400 million in unpaid wages. See a discussion of state and federal misclassification enforcement efforts here.

Hospitals and Other Healthcare Providers May be Subject to the OFCCP's Affirmative Action and Other Requirements

Many hospitals and other healthcare providers are government contractors, and must comply with various laws and regulations enforced by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), but don't realize it. As a result, they may be failing to satisfy various obligations imposed on government contractors, such as the requirement to have an affirmative action plan. For more on who's covered and what to do about it, see this article.

Supreme Court decides City of Ontario v Quon

See this interesting write-up of the Supreme Court's decision in the text message privacy case, City of Ontario v Quon.