FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12297, 270 F. Supp. 2d 401, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,516 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) grants eligible employees leave 'to care for' a qualifying family member with a serious health condition, but this provision requires the employee to be actively involved in providing physical or psychological care, rather than merely visiting or being present at a hospital.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Fioto was employed as a sales manager at Manhattan Woods Golf Club, with a contract stating he could only be terminated for 'reasonable cause'.
- Fioto's mother was hospitalized with cancer that had spread to her brain and was scheduled for emergency brain surgery.
- Doctors advised Fioto that his mother's surgery was extremely serious and there was a significant chance she might not survive.
- On July 15, 2000, Fioto telephoned his employer to notify them he would not be coming to work that day, stating he needed 'to be there' for his mother's surgery.
- Fioto's subordinate, Phil Hughes, took the call and explicitly told Fioto to go be with his mother.
- The following day, July 16, 2000, Fioto was fired from his job by defendant Lee.
- The trial record contained no evidence about Fioto's specific actions or interactions with his mother or her doctors at the hospital, nor whether he saw her before or after surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Fioto sued defendants Manhattan Woods Golf Club, Inc. in a federal district court.
- Fioto alleged two claims: (1) a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for wrongful termination, and (2) breach of his employment contract.
- A three-day jury trial was conducted in the district court.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, defendants moved to dismiss the FMLA claim, but the district court reserved decision on this motion.
- On April 4, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Fioto on both the FMLA and breach of contract claims, awarding damages for each.
- Following the verdict, defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) on the FMLA claim, arguing that Fioto failed to adduce evidence qualifying him for FMLA leave.
- In the alternative, defendants sought a reduction in the FMLA damages awarded by the jury and also moved to overturn the verdict on the breach of contract claim.
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 qualify for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) by being present at a hospital during a parent's emergency surgery if there is no evidence that the employee provided physical or psychological care to the parent?
Opinions:
Majority - McMahon, District Judge
No, an employee does not qualify for FMLA leave by merely being present at a hospital during a parent's emergency surgery without evidence of providing physical or psychological care. The court held that FMLA's 'to care for' requirement, as interpreted by 29 C.F.R. § 825.116, demands active involvement in providing either physical or psychological care. This includes aiding with basic needs, offering psychological comfort, assisting with care arrangements, or making medical decisions. Merely visiting or being present, without demonstrating such engagement, is insufficient to meet the statutory standard. The court found that Fioto failed to present any evidence to the jury that he provided any form of physical or psychological care to his mother, despite the grave circumstances. His testimony only indicated he called in 'to be there' for the surgery and did not see his mother after. The court declined to allow the jury to engage in speculation regarding his activities, emphasizing that the burden was on the plaintiff to show 'something—anything—to participate in his mother’s care.' While acknowledging that the employer's conduct was 'uncaring and unfeeling' and constituted a breach of contract (which the jury properly found), the court determined it did not rise to the level of an FMLA violation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the evidentiary requirements for FMLA claims related to 'caring for' a family member. It establishes that while the FMLA's 'to care for' provision is interpreted broadly to include psychological comfort, it does not cover mere presence or visitation at a hospital without proof of active engagement in care. The ruling places a clear burden on employees to document and demonstrate specific acts of care, moving beyond subjective intent or general presence. This will likely influence how employees approach FMLA leave and how employers assess such claims, compelling both parties to seek clear evidence of the nature of care provided, particularly when the illness is severe but the employee's role is not immediately obvious.
