On April 4, 2006, Jerry Romans received a call
at work from his sister, who told him that his terminally ill mother was
unlikely to survive the night, and decisions needed to be made about whether to
keep her on life support. Prior, Romans had submitted paperwork to his employer
certifying that he was a health care provider and power of attorney for his
mother. He intended to go to the hospital immediately after his shift, which
was scheduled to end at 11 p.m. His employer, however, told him to work a
double shift to cover for an employee on the next shift who had called off.
Romans told his supervisor, "I'm not staying. My mom's dying. I'm leaving," but
the supervisor responded, "I'll have you fired if you leave." Romans
nevertheless punched out, left the facility, and drove to the hospital.
In his subsequent lawsuit, Romans challenged that the
one-day suspension he received for "leaving the facility and abandoning his
shift" violated the FMLA. In Romans
v. Michigan Dep't of Human Servs. (2/16/12) [pdf] [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers],
the 6th Circuit agreed. The court pointed out that the FMLA's regulations
provide that an employee who is "needed to care for" a family member is
entitled to FMLA leave. That "care" can be either psychological comfort or
physical care, and includes arrangements for changes in care. The 6th Circuit
concluded that "a decision regarding whether an ill mother should stay on life
support would logically be encompassed by 'arrangements for changes in care.'"
Applying a common sense (and, dare I say, human) interpretation of the FMLA,
the court added, "To be sure, this is the kind of decision, like transfer to a
nursing home, that few people would relish making without the help of other
family members, and the regulations do not force them to do so."
Too often, we, as lawyers, business owners, HR
professionals, and the like, become too caught up in what the law allows us to
do or forbids us from doing. When you focus too much on the legalities of a
personnel decision, you risk losing focus on the humanities of the situation.
This case illustrates 1) that the law, every now and again, lets employers make
humane personnel decisions, and 2) bad things happen when businesses ignore the golden rule of employment relations.
Visit the Ohio Employer's Law Blog for more
Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz,
with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a
partner in our Labor
& Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or email@example.com.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.