CFRA Covered Employee’s Leave to Care for Adult Sister Prior to Expanded Law

California Highway Patrol (CHP) violated the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) in 2014 when it fired a worker after caring for his adult sister, a California appeals court ruled. The court said that the employee was entitled to family leave because he was “in loco parentis” with his sister.

In 2014, the CFRA did not cover an employee’s leave of absence to care for a sibling. At that point, however, an employee was entitled to leave to care for an adult relative, including one whom the employee was in loco parentis.

An employee is in loco parentis if he acts in the place of a parent or is otherwise entrusted with the rights and obligations of a parent. In particular, there does not have to be a biological or legal relationship between the employee and the dependent.

The employee’s immediate family in this case included his mother and sister. In 1995 he moved from Haiti to the USA. Eleven years later, he began working as the CHP’s peace commissioner. Over the next eight years, performance reviews showed he was proficient or better in all categories.

The employee took care of his 80-year-old mother who lived with him. His sister, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, stayed in Haiti. The employee has created a private health facility for her in the family home. He often traveled there to help her with the care. He was in regular contact with his sister’s doctor, who regarded him as her carer.

The employee paid the property tax for the family home. He also paid for his sister’s food, daily necessities, medical care, and health insurance. He employed and supervised a caretaker for his sister.

On November 9, 2014, the employee learned that his sister had left the family home and was roaming the streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. He was also told that local law enforcement had ordered him to be the next of kin to his sister to file a complaint. Later that day, the employee informed his manager that he might need a leave of absence. He had previously taken a leave of absence from his CHP duty to look after his sister, once in 2007 when she was experiencing a medical crisis and again in 2010 after an earthquake.

The next day, the employee informed his supervisor that his sister was missing in Haiti and requested a two-week leave of absence. His supervisor informed the CHP captain that the employee “had to leave the country to take care of family matters”. He left the next day, November 11th.

When the employee did not show up for work on November 14, CHP reported him absent without leave.

When the worker returned to work on December 4, he submitted documents relating to his vacation, including:

• Medical records confirming his sister’s condition and ongoing medical treatment.
• Police reports indicate that he was his sister’s next of kin and that he had launched a police search to find her.
• Financial records that prove the employee’s longstanding financial support for his sister.

CHP refused to accept or evaluate the documents. It initially assigned the employee to desk duty and later dismissed him.

The employee sued under the CFRA. The case went to court and the jury ruled in favor of the worker on all of the lawsuits, including the fact that he was eligible to take vacation and that the CHP violated the CFRA by denying his vacation request and firing him.

The CHP appealed, arguing, among other things, that the employee was not entitled to CFRA leave because he had not been in loco parentis for his sister. The appellate court disagreed and upheld the jury’s claim for damages of $ 3.9 million and the trial’s verdict in favor of the worker.

Proof of in-loco parentis status

The court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury’s finding that the employee was facing his sister in loco parentis. He took care of her every day for almost two decades. He paid for her home and other essentials, and sent her money at least once a month. He paid for her medical care and employed and supervised a janitor. He communicated regularly with her doctors to understand and consider her psychological and medical needs. He made frequent trips to the family home in Haiti to look after them.

While in Haiti in the fall of 2014, the agent worked with the police to track down his sister. And when she was found, he went with her to see the doctor, filled out her prescriptions and took care of her daily needs. Such evidence showed an ongoing and enduring relationship between the worker and his sister, the court concluded.

Vincent v. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol, California Ct. App., No. B302026 (August 31, 2021).

Professional note: With effect from January 1, 2021, the CFRA added grandparents, grandchildren and siblings to the list of relatives for whose care an employee can take leave. If the events in this case had occurred today, the employee would not be obliged to comply with the in loco parentis requirements. However, the analysis still applies to an application for foster leave for a person who does not fall into any of the relationship categories established in the amended law. As the court mentioned, there is no biological or legal relationship between the employee and the person in need of care for the application of the in loco parentis standard.

Joanne Deschenaux, JD, is a freelance writer based in Annapolis, Maryland.