## Facts

- Anthony Fioto, Jr. worked as a sales manager for a golf club operated by related defendant entities and a principal.
- On July 15, 2000, Fioto reported he would miss work because his mother, who had cancer, was hospitalized and undergoing emergency brain surgery.
- Fioto spent the day at the hospital, but the trial record did not show that he saw his mother after surgery, that she was conscious, or that he provided or arranged physical or psychological care that day.
- Fioto was terminated for missing work on July 15, 2000.
- Fioto sued for interference/retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), asserting leave “to care for” a parent, and for breach of contract based on the termination.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that Fioto’s July 15 absence qualified as FMLA leave “to care for” a parent with a serious health condition under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C).
2. Whether defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Fioto’s breach-of-contract claim.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 50(b) motion as to the FMLA claim and entered judgment as a matter of law for defendants on that claim, setting aside the jury’s verdict and damages award.
- The court dismissed as moot defendants’ alternative request to reduce FMLA damages.
- The court denied defendants’ Rule 50(b) motion as to the breach-of-contract claim, leaving the jury’s contract verdict and $74,375 damages award intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 50, judgment as a matter of law is proper when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmovant, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to that party.
- FMLA leave under 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C) requires evidence that the employee was “needed to care for” the family member; Department of Labor regulations contemplate physical or psychological care, filling in for other caregivers, or arranging/altering care.
- Mere presence at a hospital during a relative’s medical event, without evidence of actual caregiving or a need to provide care, is insufficient to establish FMLA-protected “care for” leave.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the jury’s FMLA verdict because the record showed only that the employee went to the hospital during his mother’s surgery, not that he provided or was needed to provide care as the FMLA requires; the separate breach-of-contract verdict for the employee remained in effect.


Fioto v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enters., LLC, 270 F. Supp. 2d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)