Lexplug logoLexplug

No. 98-16141

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
199 F.3d 1068 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employee must demonstrate that the family member has a "serious health condition" as defined by the statute, which requires specific periods of incapacity and treatment, and that the employee's leave is to "care for" that family member, meaning to participate in their ongoing medical treatment, not merely to protect them from other potential harm.


Facts:

  • Fe Castro Marchisheck's 14-year-old son, Shaun, had a history of behavioral problems for which he had received counseling sporadically since 1991.
  • On August 5, 1995, Shaun was assaulted and suffered minor physical injuries, including a nasal contusion and abrasions.
  • Marchisheck took Shaun to the emergency room the next day, where he was treated once, observed to be 'alert and oriented,' and sent home with instructions for basic wound care.
  • Concerned for his safety, Marchisheck decided to move Shaun to live with her brother in the Philippines.
  • On August 10, 1995, Marchisheck requested a five-week vacation leave from her employer, San Mateo County, which her supervisor denied due to staffing needs.
  • On August 17, Marchisheck obtained a letter from a psychiatrist, Dr. Solomon, who had never met or treated Shaun, describing a 'family medical crisis' and the need for the move.
  • Marchisheck presented the letter to her supervisors, who again denied the immediate leave request but offered alternative leave dates, which she rejected.
  • Marchisheck took the unapproved leave and flew with Shaun to the Philippines on August 17, with no specific plans for him to receive medical or psychological treatment there.

Procedural Posture:

  • San Mateo County terminated Fe Castro Marchisheck's employment for taking an unapproved leave of absence.
  • Marchisheck filed a complaint against San Mateo County in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the FMLA and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).
  • The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of San Mateo County, ruling that Marchisheck's son did not have a 'serious medical condition' under the FMLA and CFRA.
  • Marchisheck, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

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's unauthorized leave to move her teenage son to another country to protect him from potential future assault qualify for protection under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when the son's physical injuries did not receive more than one instance of medical treatment and his psychological issues did not cause a period of incapacity?


Opinions:

Majority - Graber, Circuit Judge

No. An employee's leave to move her son to another country for his safety does not qualify for FMLA protection where the son's condition does not meet the statutory definition of a 'serious health condition' and the leave is not for the purpose of 'caring for' him in a medical sense. The court reasoned that Shaun did not have a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA. His physical injuries from the assault failed the test because he was treated only once, not the required 'two or more times.' His chronic psychological issues did not qualify because there was no evidence they caused any period of 'incapacity,' meaning an inability to attend school or perform other regular daily activities. The court also rejected the argument that a combination of physical and psychological conditions created a serious health condition, as there was no evidence they were ever treated as a single, incapacitating condition. Furthermore, even if a serious health condition existed, Marchisheck's actions did not constitute 'caring for' Shaun under the FMLA. 'Caring for' involves participation in ongoing treatment, but Marchisheck moved her son to a rural area with no plans for medical or psychological care; her motive was to ensure his safety from future harm, which is not a purpose protected by the FMLA.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the stringent, technical requirements for what constitutes a 'serious health condition' and 'caring for' a family member under the FMLA. It establishes that an employee's laudable desire to protect a child's general safety and well-being is distinct from the FMLA's narrower purpose of providing leave to address specific medical needs through treatment. The ruling reinforces that courts will strictly interpret the statutory and regulatory definitions, such as the required number of treatments and evidence of incapacity. This case serves as a precedent cautioning that not all family crises, even those involving health, will trigger FMLA protections without meeting the specific definitional thresholds.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: No. 98-16141 (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"