## Facts

- Cynthia Dillon began working for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) in 1989 and later worked in the Payroll Section.
- In August 2002, Dillon requested three weeks of leave (Dec. 12, 2002–Jan. 2, 2003) for a family trip; she bought airline tickets before approval.
- Supervisors stated that three weeks off during that period could not be approved because of payroll operational demands; Dillon was advised to request a shorter period.
- Dillon’s grandmother in Jamaica became seriously ill; Dillon asserted the grandmother had essentially raised her and sought FMLA leave to care for her.
- Dillon claimed the grandmother qualified as a “parent” under the FMLA because the grandmother stood in loco parentis during Dillon’s childhood; Dillon later detailed that she lived with the grandmother, who provided emotional and financial support.
- MNCPPC denied FMLA leave and terminated Dillon after she was absent without approved leave.
- Dillon sued alleging FMLA interference and retaliation; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Dillon’s grandmother could qualify as a “parent” under the FMLA based on an in loco parentis relationship during Dillon’s childhood.
2. Whether Dillon gave MNCPPC sufficient, timely information to place it on notice that her requested leave might be FMLA-qualifying, triggering any duty to inquire or designate leave.
3. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on Dillon’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims given disputed facts about the relationship, notice, and the reason for termination.

## Decision

- Dillon’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
- MNCPPC’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- The court held that disputed, material facts prevented judgment as a matter of law on key elements, including in loco parentis status and what MNCPPC was told (and when) about the basis for FMLA leave.
- The court concluded that aspects of Dillon’s FMLA claims could proceed because the record did not conclusively resolve whether MNCPPC had adequate notice and whether its actions constituted interference or retaliation.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FMLA, “parent” includes an individual who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a child; the inquiry focuses on whether the person assumed parental responsibilities (including care and support).
- In loco parentis status is commonly fact-dependent and may be inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment where evidence about the relationship is disputed.
- An employee need not expressly cite the FMLA, but must provide enough information for the employer to understand the leave may be FMLA-qualifying; that level of notice may trigger an employer obligation to seek additional information and properly designate leave.
- An FMLA interference claim turns on entitlement to leave (including qualifying relationship and serious health condition) and whether the employer restrained or denied FMLA rights.
- An FMLA retaliation claim requires proof that adverse action was taken because of the employee’s exercise or attempted exercise of FMLA rights; where motive and causation are disputed, summary judgment may be improper.

## Conclusion

The court declined to resolve the dispute as a matter of law because factual disagreements about the grandmother’s in loco parentis role and the adequacy and timing of Dillon’s communications to MNCPPC prevented definitive rulings on all FMLA interference and retaliation issues at the summary-judgment stage.


Dillon v. Md.-Nat’l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm’n, 382 F. Supp. 2d 777 (D. Md. 2005)