Employee's Lack of Diligence in Obtaining Timely Medical Certification Destroys Her FMLA Claim
As a management side attorney, I love when FMLA cases provide real, practical takeaways for employers that help them better administer FMLA leave. Yesterday was one of those days, as a federal court took a plaintiff to task for: 1) failing to provide timely FMLA medical certification; and 2) failing to make a good faith effort to turn the certification in on time. In its decision, the court explained for employers the various ways the employee could have shown that she was attempting in good faith to return medical certification.
The Facts
Ronita Brookins was employed by Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. to review customer orders for credit card fraud. Sadly, she also grappled with breast cancer. She beat the cancer the first time, but it returned several years later. During this later period, Brookins had a serious of suspect, unexcused absences that put her on the verge of termination. When Staples called the attendance problems to Brookins' attention, she informed the Company for the first time about the recurrence of the cancer and insisted that many of the absences were related to her treatment. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, Staples asked Brookins to provide medical certification, which was due back to Staples with 15 calendar days.
When Brookins didn't return the certification on time, Staples gave her another seven days. And another extension after that. About one month after Brookins should have returned the certification, Staples decided to convert her absences to unexcused leave and, as a result, it terminated her employment. Brookins later filed FMLA interference and retaliation claims.
The Ruling & Insights for Employers
Under the FMLA regulations, employers have the right to request and obtain complete and sufficient medical certification to support an absence due to an employee's alleged serious health condition. The employee's obligation to return this medical certification is fairly clear:
The employee must provide the requested certification to the employer within 15 calendar days after the employer’s request, unless it is not practicable under the particular circumstances to do so despite the employee’s diligent, good faith efforts. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b)
If the employee does not provide certification, the FMLA regulations allow the employer to deny FMLA coverage to the employee until the certification is provided. Thus, any absences in the interim are unexcused and could subject the employee to termination.
Here, Brookins blew the 15 day turnaround. So, she could save her FMLA claim only if she could establish that she was engaging in diligent, good faith efforts to return the certification on time.
Employers regularly ask me -- what precisely are diligent, good faith efforts? Let's start with what Brookins did here to obtain certification: she called her two primary physicians and asked them to complete the certification. When they flat out refused to complete the form, Brookins did nothing further to obtain certification. Literally nothing. Nada. This was hardly impressive to the court.
The Brookins court suggests what the employee could have done to show that she was engaging in diligent, good faith efforts to obtain complete and sufficient certification:
- When Brookins initially was rebuffed by these two physicians, she could have contacted them again, explaining the importance of completing the certification.
- She could have asked any one of three other additional specialists she visited with during her treatment to complete the form.
- She could have mailed the form to any of these doctors.
- She could have delivered the form in person to any of these doctors.
- Perhaps most significant to the court: she should have contacted her employer to explain her difficulties in obtaining timely certification and requested an extension before the 15-day deadline expired. (In her case, she didn't seek an extension until after the deadline passed.)
Because the court found that Brookins did not make diligent efforts to obtain certification, it dismissed her FMLA claims, finding that the exception to the 15-day rule did not apply. More importantly, the ruling gave employers a guide map when determining whether their own employee has engaged in "diligent, good faith efforts" to obtain certification. Brookins v. Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. (pdf)
Cheesy moment alert: I must confess a moment of weakness here -- perhaps it's my Catholic guilt setting in a bit on Ash Wednesday, but I can't help but feel a bit for Ms. Brookins' situation, since it appears as though her primary care doctors' refusal to complete the form is what likely did her in. As she battled breast cancer for a second time and now was rebuffed by her two main doctors, obtaining medical certification had to be a low priority for her. Nevertheless, the FMLA rules apply to Brookins just as they do any other employee in far less empathetic situations.
And Brookins didn't follow the rules. As harsh as it may seem to some, it's the correct ruling.
As a labor and employment attorney, I spend a significant amount of time counseling employers as they prepare to terminate an employee. Often enough, the situation goes something like this:
Dads need lovin' too. So says a federal court judge, who has allowed a father to proceed on his FMLA retaliation claim after the employee alleged that his employer's "macho man" culture was a culprit in his ouster.
Last week, I responded to an FAQ that often arises for employers when administering the Family and Medical Leave Act:
In light of the EEOC's litigation over automatic termination provisions under the ADA (we've beaten you over the head with it
The scenario is all too common: An employee takes and exhausts 12 weeks of FMLA leave and still cannot return to work. At this point, the employer is left with a dilemma -- does it terminate employment because the employee cannot immediately return to work, or does it consider approving more leave than the 12 weeks provided for under the Family and Medical Leave Act? This series of events is a regular trap for employers and, often enough, an employer gets ensnared in the trap without first analyzing its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Remember a few months back when I
Employers beware: Just when an employee gives you the left jab, look for the right hook. The combination of the two, as far as the Family and Medical Leave Act is concerned, can knock employers out. As
Q: Can an Employer Deny FMLA Leave to An Employee Who Is Not Yet Eligible to Take Leave?
When making difficult decisions about eliminating jobs, senior management surely may disagree as to "who" is cut and how it's done. However, after the decision is made, it is critical that management collectively support the decision and refrain from public dissension. When that dissension is shared publicly or with the affected employee, it can spell disaster.
File this in your "Don't Do This When Conducting a RIF" folder. As highlighted by the folks at the
During a
Employers often complain that they see an uptick in the use of sick leave and FMLA leave around the holidays. In the case of
As a father of three, I tend to take interest in "feel good" stories about working parents. However, in a recent ABA Journal article, an article about a working dad caught my attention for a far different reason. The
Connect with me on LinkedIn

