An employee is entitled to a trial on whether his former employer interfered with and denied his right to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for his ill grandfather.  In Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a lower court erred in granting summary judgment to the employer on grounds that the leave request was denied without the employee ever informing the employer that his grandfather had raised him in loco parentis.

 

The employee, Frantz Coutard, sought FMLA leave to care for his grandfather, who suffered from a number of serious health conditions, after he was released from the hospital in 2013.  Coutard's grandfather had raised him as his son after Coutard's father died before he was four.  Coutard sought leave to temporarily care for his grandfather until he was able to hire a home health aide to provide daily care while he worked.  The company denied his leave request and terminated Coutard when he continued to stay home with his grandfather after the denial.

 

Coutard subsequently filed suit alleging that the denial of leave and his termination violated FMLA.  The company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it denied the leave request and terminated Coutard when he failed to inform management that his grandfather had raised him in loco parentis.  The district court granted the employer's motion, and Coutard appealed on the grounds that the responsibility for obtaining information on the nature of Coutard's relationship with his grandfather rested with the employer, which had failed to inquire further prior to taking adverse action against him.

 

In concluding that the lower court improperly granted summary judgment to the employer, the Second Circuit reasoned that "because Coutard met the eligibility requirements for FMLA leave and requested that leave expressly to care for his seriously ill grandfather, MCU as an employer covered by the Act had an obligation to specify the additional information that it needed in order to determine whether he was entitled to such leave."  The court reasoned that applicable regulations establish that employees seeking leave for an FMLA-qualifying reason for the first time need not use specific words to do so.  They establish instead that the employer is required to obtain any additional information it requires to render a decision on the request.

 

"In light of these regulations," the court reasoned, "we conclude that the obligation of an employee to give notice of his need for FMLA leave is not the obligation, imposed by the district court on Coutard, to provide the employer with all of the necessary details to permit a definitive determination of the FMLA's applicability at or before the time of the request.  Rather, in the absence of a request for additional information, an employee has provided sufficient notice to his employer if that notice indicates reasonably that the FMLA may apply."