## Facts

- Beverly Ballard worked for the Chicago Park District and was the primary caregiver for her mother, who had end-stage congestive heart failure and received hospice care at home.
- Ballard provided extensive daily care, including administering medication, assisting with hygiene and meals, and monitoring her mother’s medical needs.
- Ballard’s mother wished to take a short trip to Las Vegas; funding was arranged through a nonprofit that grants wishes to terminally ill adults.
- Ballard requested unpaid leave to accompany her mother on the six-day trip; the employer denied the request, and the parties disputed whether Ballard was informed before leaving.
- During the trip, Ballard continued caregiving duties and responded to an emergency by taking her mother to a hospital.
- The Park District later terminated Ballard for unauthorized absences corresponding to the trip.
- Ballard sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging that the absences were protected leave.

## Issues

1. Whether leave taken to accompany a terminally ill parent on a trip, while providing physical and psychological assistance, qualifies as leave “to care for” a parent with a serious health condition under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C).
2. Whether FMLA “care” is limited by geographic location (e.g., home or medical setting) or requires a connection to ongoing medical treatment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Chicago Park District.
- The court held that Ballard’s requested leave could qualify as FMLA leave “to care for” her mother, even though the care occurred during travel and outside the home.
- The court rejected adding a geographic limitation or a treatment-related requirement to the statutory term “to care for.”
- The case was allowed to proceed on the theory that the absences were FMLA-protected.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FMLA, “to care for” a parent with a serious health condition includes providing physical assistance with basic medical, hygienic, nutritional, or safety needs and providing psychological comfort and reassurance.
- The statutory entitlement to leave “to care for” is not restricted to a particular place; the location where care is provided does not, by itself, defeat coverage.
- The FMLA does not require that “care” be tied to ongoing or formal medical treatment; day-to-day caregiving and support may qualify.
- Employers may use statutory and regulatory safeguards, including medical certification requirements, to test whether requested leave is genuinely for covered caregiving.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted the FMLA’s “to care for” provision broadly, holding that an employee may take protected leave to provide qualifying physical and psychological care to a seriously ill parent during travel, without proving the trip was connected to ongoing medical treatment or limited to a home or clinical setting.


Ballard v. Chicago Park District, 741 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2014)