holding that FMLA leave was not available to care for an employee’s newborn grandchild while the baby’s mother (the employee’s 18-year-old daughter) suffered from a short-term bout with postpartum depression, both because the employee’s adult child was not incapable of self-care (i.e., not under a “mental or physical disability”) and because the statute does not cover care of grandchildren
How later courts described this case
- holding that FMLA leave was not available to care for an employee’s newborn grandchild while the baby’s mother (the employee’s 18-year-old daughter) suffered from a short-term bout with postpartum depression, both because the employee’s adult child was not incapable of self-care (i.e., not under a “mental or physical disability”) and because the statute does not cover care of grandchildren
- recognizing that “other courts will impose [the duty to inform the employee of a deficiency in a certification and provide a reasonable opportunity to cure] on employers when the FMLA certification is merely ‘inadequate,’ rather than ‘incomplete’ ”
- holding that a medical certification form under a related FMLA provision is insufficient where it lacks a statement of “the appropriate medical facts within the healthcare provider’s knowledge” to support the FMLA claim
- noting that the nearly identical permissive language in 29 U.S.C. § 2613(c)(1) regarding the employer’s right to demand a second certification does not “requir[e] an employer to obtain a second opinion or else waive any future opportunity to contest the validity of the [first] certification”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in all of the sections of Judge Batchelder’s opinion, except for Section II. A.2, concerning the plaintiffs eligibility for medical leave for caring for her daughter. I agree with the analysis of the First Circuit in Navarro v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90 (1st Cir.2001). I agree with the First Circuit’s opinion on this subject, but I agree with Judge Batchelder that, even *584 so, the plaintiff in the instant case does not meet the First Circuit standard. There is no showing that the depression of the plaintiffs daughter was of such duration or severity that it would allow the plaintiff medical leave for caring for her. The plaintiff made out a haphazard sort of case that does not show a serious medical emergency.