Every once in a while, a court issues a surprising decision. Such is the case with a recent decision involving paternity leave. In a recent case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a father was not legally entitled to take paternity leave under the Federal Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) before the birth of his child.
The facts of the case are interesting. A male employee—who lived in Florida—had girlfriend who was pregnant. But the girlfriend lived in Connecticut and planned to give birth in Connecticut. A few weeks before the baby was due, the male employee asked his employer if he could take time off to travel to Connecticut before his child was born. The employee left for Connecticut before the birth of his child but was shortly fired thereafter for being absent without a valid excuse. The employee then sued his employer.
In a surprise decision, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that FMLA does not provide a non-pregnant expectant parent leave to await the birth of their child. Rather, the Court said, FMLA provides a non-pregnant employee leave to care for an incapacitated pregnant spouse or to care for her during prenatal care if needed. But FMLA, the Court said, does not do more than this.
The Court’s decision is somewhat surprising, and—frankly speaking—California employers are cautioned not to read too much into the Court’s decision. As we’ve said before, California law is generally more friendlier to employees than federal and other states’ laws. When in doubt about how to navigate FMLA or any other leave-of-absence law, it is imperative that California employers obtain legal counsel prior to taking action.
If you have any questions about FMLA or navigating employee leave of absences more generally, please contact us at info@mnklawyers.com
