Read the case study Ballard v$.$ Chicago Park District on page $449$ and asnwer the critical thinking question $-$ "What if the facts were different?" $(2$ pts$).$ Answer the $2$ questions under Legal environment. $(2$ points per question$)$ Ballard v$.$ Chica, so Park District united States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, $241\mathrm{.}31838(2014)$

Background and suter drey Balad we ced for the Chicago Park Distic. She Ived with her Sarah, who suffered from end$-$stage congestive heart failure. Beverly served as Sarah's primary cregiver with superdof teran Hosie & Palatie Care. The Beet tered sat at alm aren

gecure funds fore Pen Distie for u$,-$tatie rip to Las Vegas: To hocon any sad sa as net caretaker, the employer refused, cut Beinly and Sarah took the trip as paiy ano

feverly asked the sed, but Bever anaid tin tof under the Family accompaiya strave her carcak Later, the Park District terminated Beverly for "unauthorized absences$."$ She filed a suit in a federal district court against at Beverly her. The ourt issued a decision in Bevery favoried a Bart Datede

In the Language of the Court

appealed, arguing that Beverly had been absent from work on a recreati falt. he

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

$****$

a family member with a "serious health condition"

We begin with the text of the $[$FMLA$)$: an eligible employee is entitled to leave in order to care for"

$**$ The EMLA's text does not restrict care to a particular place or geographic location. For instance, it does not say that an employee is entitled to time off $"$to care at home for" a family member. The only limitation it places on care is that the family member must have a serious health conditiom ber. The out n$,$ without good reason, to read in another limitation that Congress has not provided. Emphasis edean

Chapter $20$ Employment Law $449$

Case $20\mathrm{.}3$

proved quite important indeed when a fire at the hotel made it impossible to reach their room, requiring Beverly to find another source of insulin and pain medicine. Thus, at the very least, $[$Beverly$)$ requested leave in order to provide physical care.

$**$

$***$The Park District describes $[$Beverly$\text{'}$s$]$ travel as a "recreational trip" or a "non$-$medically related pleasure trip." It also raises the specter that employees will help themselves to unpaid FMLA leave in order to take personal vacations, simply by bringing seriously ill family members along. So perhaps what the Park District means to argue is that the real reason Beverly requested leave was in order to take a free pleasure trip, and not in order to care for her mother. $***$ However, $***$ an employer concerned about the risk that employees will abuse the FMLA's leave provisions may of course require that requests be certified by the family member's health care provider. And any worries about opportunistic leave$-$taking in this case should be tempered by the fact that this dispute arises out of the hospice and palliative care context.

If Beverly had sought leave to care for her mother in Chicago, her request would have fallen within the scope of the FMLA. So too if Sarah had lived in Las Vegas instead of with her daughter, and Beverly had requested leave to care for her mother there. Ultimately, other than a concern that our straightforward reading will "open the door to increased FMLA requests, the Park District gives us no reason to treat the current scenario any differently.

Decision and Remedy The U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment. Under the FMLA, an eligible employee is entitled to take leave from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition. The care is not restricted to a particular place $($such as $"$at home"$).$

Critical Thinking

$*$ What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that Beverly had requested leave to make arrangements for a change in Sarah's care, such as a transfer to a nursing home. Is it likely that the result would have been different? Explain.

$*$ Legal Environment Under the EMLA, an employee is eligible for leave when he or she is needed o care for a family member. Should "needed to care for" be interpreted so cover only ongoing physical care? Discuss.