I am tutoring and I want to see what the best answer is that the student can provide, but even I am struggling to form the best answer.

Review the actual case of Ballard v. Chicago Park District, 741 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2014).

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:

In regards to the case of Ballard v. Chicago Park District, 741 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2014).

• 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.