29 C.F.R. § 825.112Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule
The regulation, in full
(a) Circumstances qualifying for leave. Employers covered by FMLA are required to grant leave to eligible employees: (1) For birth of a son or daughter, and to care for the newborn child ( see § 825.120); (2) For placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care ( see § 825.121); (3) To care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition ( see §§ 825.113 and 825.122); (4) Because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job ( see §§ 825.113 and 825.123); (5) Because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty status ( see §§ 825.122 and 825.126); and (6) To care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. See §§ 825.122 and 825.127.
(b) Equal application. The right to take leave under FMLA applies equally to male and female employees. A father, as well as a mother, can take family leave for the birth, placement for adoption, or foster care of a child.
(c) Active employee. In situations where the employer/employee relationship has been interrupted, such as an employee who has been on layoff, the employee must be recalled or otherwise be re-employed before being eligible for FMLA leave. Under such circumstances, an eligible employee is immediately entitled to further FMLA leave for a qualifying reason.
Verbatim from the eCFR, title 29, section 825.112, current as of 2026-07-29. Read it at the official source: ecfr.gov →
Court opinions applying § 825.112
Each opinion below was checked against its own text: the citation appears in a C.F.R. context and the opinion discusses the FMLA. Cases that merely contained the number were dropped.
| Case | Court | Decided |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas v. District of Columbia | District Court, District of Columbia | 2016-07-18 |
| Kathryn Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2012-01-10 |
| Steve Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass, Gmbh | Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 2004-03-08 |
| Aubuchon, Steve v. Knauf Fiberglass | Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 2004-03-08 |
| Rush v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. | District Court, S.D. Ohio | 2012-11-20 |
| Johnston Sch. Com. v. Johnston Fed., Tea. | Superior Court of Rhode Island | 2011-11-04 |
| Bernardo G. Bocalbos, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. National Western Life Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 1999-03-16 |
| Bocalbos v. Natl We Life Ins Co | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 1998-12-29 |
Opinions hosted by CourtListener, a free public service of the non-profit Free Law Project. Court opinions are public-domain works of the United States.