Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In an Opinion Letter issued on June 22, 2010, the U.S. Dept. of Labor (DOL) clarified who may be a parent under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including same-sex domestic partners who stand in loco parentis to a child.
The DOL stated that, in the FMLA's definition of “son” or “daughter,” the in loco parentis provision would allow domestic partners to take leave in the case of birth, adoption or placement of a new child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition.
A 'Simple Statement'
The DOL reaffirmed its position that, under the regulations, the only documentation an employer may require to prove in loco parentis status is a “simple statement” asserting that the requisite family relationship exists. This issue was discussed in 2008 when the FMLA regulations were amended, at which time the DOL rejected employers' suggestion that additional documentation be allowed, including tax returns demonstrating financial dependence.
The regulations define “son” or “daughter” to include children for whom an employee stands in loco parentis. In its Opinion Letter, the DOL interpreted this provision broadly, acknowledging that Congress intended the definition of “son” or “daughter” to reflect “the reality that many children in the United States today do not live in traditional 'nuclear' families with their biological father and mother.” The DOL concluded that either day-to-day care or financial support may establish the in loco parentis relationship when an employee intends to assume parental responsibilities. It is not necessary, according to the DOL, that both factors be present.
No Limited Number of Parents
Under the DOL's broad interpretation, the FMLA does not limit the number of parents a child may have. For example, a child whose divorced parents each remarries could mean that the child now has four parents. Such relationships, whether biological or legal or neither, may entitle employees to FMLA leave. In particular, same-sex partners may care for a child if they otherwise stand in loco parentis.
Conclusion
Employers should review their FMLA policies to determine if modification is warranted, including, specifically, the portion of the policy defining qualifying family members for purposes of leave entitlement.
Brian D. Pedrow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Ballard Spahr's Philadelphia office, and a member of the Labor and Employment; P3/Infrastructure; Higher Education Groups; and the Health Care Reform Initiative. His legal practice consists primarily of representing management in employment-related litigation, including discrimination and harassment, labor arbitrations and negotiations, and employment contract, wrongful discharge, and tort claims. He can be reached at 215-864-8108 or [email protected].
In an Opinion Letter issued on June 22, 2010, the U.S. Dept. of Labor (DOL) clarified who may be a parent under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including same-sex domestic partners who stand in loco parentis to a child.
The DOL stated that, in the FMLA's definition of “son” or “daughter,” the in loco parentis provision would allow domestic partners to take leave in the case of birth, adoption or placement of a new child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition.
A 'Simple Statement'
The DOL reaffirmed its position that, under the regulations, the only documentation an employer may require to prove in loco parentis status is a “simple statement” asserting that the requisite family relationship exists. This issue was discussed in 2008 when the FMLA regulations were amended, at which time the DOL rejected employers' suggestion that additional documentation be allowed, including tax returns demonstrating financial dependence.
The regulations define “son” or “daughter” to include children for whom an employee stands in loco parentis. In its Opinion Letter, the DOL interpreted this provision broadly, acknowledging that Congress intended the definition of “son” or “daughter” to reflect “the reality that many children in the United States today do not live in traditional 'nuclear' families with their biological father and mother.” The DOL concluded that either day-to-day care or financial support may establish the in loco parentis relationship when an employee intends to assume parental responsibilities. It is not necessary, according to the DOL, that both factors be present.
No Limited Number of Parents
Under the DOL's broad interpretation, the FMLA does not limit the number of parents a child may have. For example, a child whose divorced parents each remarries could mean that the child now has four parents. Such relationships, whether biological or legal or neither, may entitle employees to FMLA leave. In particular, same-sex partners may care for a child if they otherwise stand in loco parentis.
Conclusion
Employers should review their FMLA policies to determine if modification is warranted, including, specifically, the portion of the policy defining qualifying family members for purposes of leave entitlement.
Brian D. Pedrow is a partner in the Litigation Department of
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.