Coutard v. Municipal Credit Union
848 F.3d 102, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2322, 27 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 253 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee provides sufficient notice for FMLA leave by stating a reason that may foreseeably qualify, such as caring for a seriously ill grandparent. This notice triggers the employer's duty to inquire further for any additional information needed to determine if the relationship qualifies, such as an in loco parentis connection.
Facts:
- Frantz Coutard's grandfather, Jean Manesson Dumond, raised him as a son from before the age of four until he was approximately 14, after Coutard's biological father passed away.
- In January 2013, the 82-year-old Dumond lived with Coutard and suffered from numerous chronic medical conditions.
- On January 22, 2013, Dumond was taken to the hospital by ambulance and diagnosed with bronchitis before being discharged the next day.
- Believing Dumond needed care, Coutard requested FMLA leave from his employer, Municipal Credit Union (MCU), stating it was to care for his seriously ill grandfather.
- MCU denied the request, stating that the FMLA does not apply to grandparents.
- Coutard did not inform MCU of the in loco parentis nature of his relationship with his grandfather when he made the request.
- MCU did not inquire further or ask Coutard for additional information regarding his relationship with his grandfather.
- After being denied leave, Coutard stayed home to care for his grandfather and on February 4, 2013, MCU terminated his employment for job abandonment.
Procedural Posture:
- Frantz Coutard filed a complaint against his employer, Municipal Credit Union (MCU), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging FMLA violations.
- Both Coutard and MCU filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of MCU, dismissing Coutard's complaint.
- Coutard (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where MCU was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee provide sufficient notice of a potential FMLA-qualifying leave by requesting to care for a seriously ill grandfather, thereby triggering the employer's duty to inquire further, even if the employee does not explicitly state that the grandfather stood in loco parentis?
Opinions:
Majority - Kearse, Circuit Judge
No. An employee provides sufficient notice under the FMLA by communicating a request for leave that reasonably indicates the FMLA may apply, which triggers the employer’s obligation to inquire for further information. Under the controlling regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b), an employee must only provide 'sufficient information for an employer to reasonably determine whether the FMLA may apply to the leave request.' The burden is not on the employee to provide all necessary details upfront or to expressly mention the specific legal basis, like an in loco parentis relationship. Coutard’s request to care for his seriously ill grandfather was sufficient to put MCU on notice that his leave may be FMLA-qualifying, since in loco parentis relationships involving grandparents are common and recognized by the Act. Once this initial notice was given, the burden shifted to MCU to 'obtain any additional required information.' Instead, MCU improperly denied the request based on the blanket and incorrect assertion that grandparents are never covered, thereby failing its duty to inquire.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the notice-and-inquiry framework of the FMLA, clarifying that the initial burden on the employee is merely to provide enough information to suggest that leave may be covered. It places an affirmative duty on employers to engage in a dialogue with employees rather than issuing categorical denials for non-obvious qualifying relationships. The ruling protects employees who are unaware of specific legal terms like 'in loco parentis' by preventing employers from using that lack of knowledge as a shield against their FMLA obligations. Consequently, employers must now be more proactive in seeking clarifying details before making a final determination on leave requests involving relatives not explicitly named in the statute's basic provisions.
