ARTICLE
14 October 2024

11th Circuit Rules Rejects Father's FMLA Claim For Leave To Prepare For Child's Birth

HB
Hall Benefits Law

Contributor

Strategically designed, legally compliant benefit plans are the cornerstone of long-term business stability and growth. As such, HBL provides comprehensive legal guidance on benefits in M&A, ESOPs, executive compensation, health and welfare benefits, retirement plans, and ERISA litigation matters. Responsive, relationship-driven counsel is the calling card of the Firm.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that an expectant father had no right to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)...
United States Family and Matrimonial

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that an expectant father had no right to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to travel out of state and prepare for his child's birth. The case is Tanner v. Stryker Corporation of Michigan, 11th Cir., No. 22-14188 (June 20, 2024).

Tristan Tanner became an employee of Stryker, a medical technology company when it acquired Tanner's former employer in 2020. Tanner ordered, inspected, delivered, and maintained inventory for surgical equipment sold to hospitals and surgery centers in Tampa, Florida.

Tanner and his former girlfriend were expecting a child during the summer of 2021. His former girlfriend moved to Connecticut in January 2021, where she planned to give birth. Tanner requested parental leave from Stryker beginning in late July or early August, during which he would stay in Connecticut with his former girlfriend and child. Stryker confirmed that Tanner was eligible for leave under the FMLA when his child was born.

Under Stryker's attendance policy, employees such as Tanner accrued two “occurrence points” for any day that they were absent without leave. If employees accumulated five points within 12 months, Stryker typically terminated their employment.

By the end of July 2021, Tanner knew that his former girlfriend would not likely give birth until closer to mid-August. However, he advised the field operations manager on July 30, 2021, that he would be absent the following week. He had accrued some paid time off (PTO) and sick leave at that time.

Tanner used some of his remaining days of PTO and sick leave to plan, pack, and prepare for his trip, and he left for Connecticut on August 8, 2021. He used the remainder of his sick time from August 9 to 12, 2021, while he stayed in a hotel in Connecticut and toured local neighborhoods to see if he would consider relocating there after the birth of his child. Tanner had no PTO or sick time to take beginning August 13, 2021, so he began accruing occurrence points. He contacted Stryker on August 16, 2021, advised that his former girlfriend would not be induced until August 18, 2024, and asked how to cover his time off until she gave birth. An HR representative contacted him the following day and told him that he had no PTO or sick time available to cover his time off, which would result in him continuing to accrue points. Meanwhile, he accrued two additional occurrence points each for August 16 and 17, bringing his total occurrence points to six.

Tanner's former girlfriend went into labor on August 18, 2021, and delivered their child on August 19, 2021. As a result, Tanner accrued another two occurrence points for August 18. Stryker terminated Tanner on August 20, 2024.

Tanner sued Stryker for interference with his FMLA rights and retaliation for taking leave under the FMLA. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Stryker.

Tanner appealed the dismissal of his case to the Eleventh Circuit, alleging that he had a right to pre-birth leave under the FMLA. The Court agreed that the FMLA protected certain types of pre-birth leave, such as when a pregnant mother receives prenatal care or becomes incapacitated and unable to work due to a pregnancy-related medical condition. Furthermore, U.S. Department of Labor regulations permit adoptive and foster parents to take leave under the FMLA before foster placement or adoption occurs if necessary to facilitate the placement or adoption. However, the Court found that despite the potential benefits of a new parent having pre-birth leave to prepare for the birth of a child, the FMLA does not protect this type of leave. The Court also ruled that Tanner failed to prove that Stryker retaliated against him because he requested FMLA leave. Therefore, the Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of Tanner's claims on summary judgment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Find out more and explore further thought leadership around Family and Matrimonial

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More