For theWeek 7 Critical Thinking Exercise, you will review the actual case of Ballard v. Chicago Park District, 741 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2014).You can review the case by clicking the following link:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1656119.html

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 covers employers (public and private) with fifty or more employees who have worked for their employers for at least a year.An eligible employee may take up to twelve weeks of leave within a twelve-month period to care for a new baby; to care for an adopted or foster child within one year of the child's placement; to care for a seriously ill spouse, child, or parent; or to care for themselves if a serious health condition prevents performing essential job functions.

During the leave, an employer must continue the absent employee's health-care coverage.After the leave, the employee must be restored to his or her original, or a comparable, position.After reading the case, you willrespond with answers to the following questions using your critical thinking and moral reasoning skills:

• Suppose that Beverly had been one of the Park District's "key employees." Would the result, in this case, have been different?
• Suppose that Beverly had requested leave to make arrangements for a change in Sarah's care, such as a transfer to a nursing home.Is it likely that the result would have been different?
• Under the FMLA, an employee is eligible for leave when he or she is needed to care for a family member.Should "needed to care for" be interpreted to cover only ongoing physical care?Discuss.