Jack Ruble worked as an Assistant Engineer aboard the vessel John H. Macmillian Jr., which required him to live on board for 26 to 34 days at a time. As he was setting off for his next voyage, he learned that his 90 year-old grandmother fell ill. She had been his primary (and often exclusive) caregiver when he was child. Ruble informed the Chief Engineer and the Captain that he might need to leave.
When Ruble’s grandmother took a turn for the worse, he immediately informed the captain and arrangements were made bring in a replacement. However, when the replacement was unable to arrive as scheduled, Ruble still left the vessel and followed his travel itinerary to get to his grandmother’s bed side. He stayed with her almost constantly over the next few weeks until she finally passed away.
Meanwhile, the company terminated Ruble’s employment, so he sued in Federal Court claiming that his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) were breached. The company filed a motion to dismiss claiming:
- Ruble did not provide adequate notice that he was requesting FMLA leave since he did not request time off to care for a parent, spouse or child; and
- Ruble’s request for time off did not alert them to the fact that he was needed to “care for” his grandmother.
An employee need not cite FMLA specifically in the request; there need only be sufficient information to let the employer know that FMLA may apply to the leave. Here, Ruble testified that he “said something about, you know, I need to get home to my grandma; my grandma took care of me, you know . . . I want to see her before she goes.” From this, the judge concluded that the company had enough notice to know that the grandmother stood in an “in loco parentis” relationship to Ruble and that the request met FMLA’s threshold.
Then, the judge noted that while FMLA does not protect “mere visitation” of family members, Ruble’s statement could be enough convince a jury that it was a request to “care for” the grandmother.
Since there was enough evidence that the company should have known that Ruble’s grandmother had been like a parent to him, and since they could have known he wanted to care for her, the judge denied the motion to dismiss and sent the case on for a jury trial. Ruble v. American River Transportation Co., No. 10-CV-00024 (E.D. Mo. June 29, 2011).
Bottom Line
Although this case was decided by a federal judge in Missouri, it may be reviewed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions apply to Minnesota as well. Therefore, it makes sense to decide that whenever an employee seeks leave for reasons that may even remotely touch upon FMLA, it is a good idea to conduct some additional inquiries and make sure you know, one way or the other, whether FMLA’s protections will apply.