FMLA Leave Rights Are Available for Some Sibling Relationships

Takeaway: This case illustrates that an employee may be eligible for FMLA leave to care for an adult sibling or other adult dependents when the employee demonstrates the intention to serve as a parent. Therefore, managers and leave administrators should be aware that employees’ requests to care for adult siblings and other dependents should not be rejected without further confirmation—consistent with the FMLA’s certification requirements—of the status of the relationship. Similarly, employers should be aware of and comply with more expansive state and local leave laws. For example, the New Jersey Family Leave Act provides unpaid leave to care for “family members,” defined more broadly to also include a parent-in-law, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or civil union partner, among other relationships.  

An employee can stand “in loco parentis” to, and take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off in order to care for, an adult sibling when the employee assumes obligations of a parental nature with the intention of serving as a parent, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. 

In June 2019, the plaintiff used her allotted paid time off to take care of her adult sister who was battling terminal cancer. This care involved attending to her sister’s medical needs, cooking her meals, helping her use the bathroom, brushing her hair and teeth, and taking care of her apartment. She also provided financial support for her sister. The plaintiff divided these responsibilities with another sister, who held medical power of attorney.

When the plaintiff ran out of paid days off, her employer allowed her to take unpaid leave at its discretion. When the plaintiff requested FMLA leave, an HR representative denied the request, explaining that the FMLA did not cover leave to take care of siblings. Instead, the employer approved a modified schedule with reduced hours for the plaintiff. However, when the plaintiff subsequently reported late to work, she was fired. In opposition to the plaintiff’s application for unemployment benefits, her employer described her departure as “job abandonment.”

The plaintiff sued her employer, alleging that her employer interfered with her FMLA rights and retaliated against her by firing her, dishonestly opposing her application for unemployment benefits, and threatening to file Rule 11 sanctions if she filed suit. The plaintiff also alleged that her employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law by firing her due to her association with her disabled dying sister and failed to properly provide COBRA notice. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims, except the COBRA violation, and imposed a statutory penalty. In evaluating the plaintiff’s FMLA claim, the district court determined that the plaintiff could not stand in loco parentis to her adult sibling because neither the parent-child relationship nor the incapacitating disability began before the “child” (her sibling) turned 18. 

On appeal, the 6th Circuit determined that the “child” in the in loco parentis relationship does not need to be a minor at the time the relationship forms, develop a debilitating condition as a minor, nor develop that condition before the relationship forms. Therefore, the court reasoned, the in loco parentis relationship can form between adult siblings.   

In reaching that conclusion, the 6th Circuit acknowledged that the statutory text does not identify whether the FMLA recognizes in loco parentis relationships under these circumstances. Instead, the 6th Circuit examined the common law definition of in loco parentis, finding that the touchstone of such a relationship is that a person must assume obligations of a parental nature “with the intention” of serving as a parent. In contrast, the “kindness and generosity” of providing aid to a loved one is insufficient to establish such a relationship.

The 6th Circuit identified a nonexhaustive list of factors to consider in determining whether a person intended to assume parental status over another adult. Direct evidence can include how the two adults regard one another, both when communicating to each other and when describing their relationship to others. Indirect evidence can include whether the alleged in loco parentis individual: 1) is in close physical proximity to the adult child, 2) assumes responsibility to support them, 3) exercises control or has rights over them, and 4) has a close emotional or familial bond with them, akin to that of an adult child. 

The 6th Circuit remanded the case to the district court to reconsider whether an in loco parentis relationship existed between the plaintiff and her sister. The 6th Circuit specified that the district court was not limited to the factors above, but still had to determine whether the record reflected that the plaintiff intended to assume a parental role over her sister.   

Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises, 6th Cir., Nos. 23-3582/3613 (Dec. 13, 2024), petition for en banc rehearing denied (Jan. 27, 2025).

Linda B. Hollinshead and Anshul S. Agrawal are attorneys with Duane Morris in Philadelphia.