FMLA interference isn't always obvious, but as one real court case showed, even a seemingly small mistake on a medical certification form can create potential serious legal and professional risks.
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that permits eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid leave from their job for specific family and medical reasons without losing their employee group health insurance and other benefits.
Covered employers include private-sector employers who employ 50 or more employees and public agencies.
Covered employees under the act must have worked for the employer for at least 12 months before the request for leave, must have at least 1,250 hours of work with the employer before the request, and must work at a location where 50 employees work within 75 miles.
Specific medical reasons that are covered under FMLA include the birth of a child, the care of the newborn within one year of birth, and when a serious health condition renders an individual unable to perform essential functions of their job.
When FMLA interference occurs, an employer “interferes” with an employee’s legitimate right to take leave under FMLA, and the employee can file a suit. Interference includes refusal to grant leave and/or retaliation for taking leave.
In this case, a Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in response to a claim alleging FMLA interference, which became the central focus of the proceedings.
Details leading up to the case
The plaintiff was employed as an assistant attorney in the city where the case was filed. The defendant was a “commonwealth attorney” for the city and was the plaintiff’s supervisor.
The plaintiff’s mother suffered from osteoporosis. The plaintiff took FMLA leave to care for his mother in 2020 and in 2021 again requested leave to care for his mother. In order to obtain approval for the requested leave, the plaintiff was required to submit a required certification form under FMLA from the mother’s physician.
The plaintiff filled out the form, including the section that the healthcare provider was to fill out based on the healthcare provider’s “medical knowledge, experience, and examination of the patient.” He based his information on the healthcare provider section based on the previous application for an FMLA leave.
The form was given to an RN in the physician’s office at the next scheduled visit. What happened after the form was given to the RN is disputed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The following issues raised included:
- The plaintiff told the RN that he filled out the entire form, but if any changes needed to be made to go ahead and make the changes.
- The plaintiff gave the RN all four pages of the form.
- The RN took the form, returned to the room shortly thereafter, and signed the form.
- The RN remembered signing something but wasn't sure why the form was given to them rather than the physician.
- The RN thought the form was for a work excuse for the day off for the plaintiff, which is why they signed it.
- If the RN knew the form was for FMLA leave, they would’ve given it to the physician.
Regardless of what occurred on that day, it is undisputed that the plaintiff faxed the form to the HR department and the defendant’s office. The form wasn’t accepted due to questions the RN raised as to what the form was, and also the issue of the plaintiff filling out the healthcare provider section himself.
FMLA interference claims
The defendant called the plaintiff to his office to discuss the form and decided that the plaintiff used poor judgment in filling out the form himself, and told him he would be terminated unless he resigned instead of being terminated. The plaintiff refused to resign, and he was terminated from his position.
A second certificate was filled out by the plaintiff’s mother’s physician so the plaintiff could take care of his mother when she had her surgery.
The plaintiff filed his lawsuit against his former supervisor and the city in the U.S. Federal District Court, alleging FMLA interference. The former supervisor filed a request for a Summary Judgment.
District court analysis and decision
The former supervisor’s argument before the court included his position that his office wasn’t an employer under the definitions of the FMLA. The court, however, held that based on the state’s definition of his position within the state, he was an employer covered by the FMLA.
As to the plaintiff’s filling out one of the form’s sections himself, rather than the physician doing so, the intention of the plaintiff is “vigorously disputed.” The facts presented to the lower court didn’t reasonably establish that the plaintiff intended to deceive, beyond dispute, the information he placed on the form. The test for “reasonableness” is ultimately a question for a jury.
Furthermore, the court held that the former supervisor isn’t entitled to qualified immunity from liability because the FMLA “clearly establishes” an employee’s rights under the FMLA. The supervisor should’ve first notified the plaintiff and allowed him to cure the form if the supervisor believed that someone other than a healthcare provider filled out the form. Since no caselaw has clearly decided what conduct is required of a public official under the circumstances of this case, the former supervisor isn’t entitled to qualified immunity.
The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied because “genuine disputes of material fact remain as to whether [the supervisor] interfered with [the plaintiff’s] FMLA rights.”
Guidelines from the case
One important guideline demonstrated in this case is the focus on the completion of the application for the FMLA leave by the plaintiff.
Although at this point the case is still pending because the summary judgment motion was denied, the case clearly supports not filling out a form of any kind that requires someone else to complete a particular section.
If someone other than the intended individual completes a form, it raises questions about why this was done and what the intent was in completing the section that way.
Intent is an essential element of an allegation of fraud, deceit, or other claims that require specific intent, as was specified in this case. A decision by a judge or jury about your intent in a particular situation is risky at best, based on evidence presented during a hearing or a trial.
As a result, it is best to always leave sections blank that are designated for other individuals to complete and have those individuals personally do so.
Understanding the details of FMLA
The FMLA is an important piece of federal legislation. It clearly protects an employee when asking for leave under the act. However, to have the protections apply, there are specific obligations you must adhere to in order to have the protections apply to your request.
According to information from the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, some of those obligations include:
- Notifying the employer 30 days before the need for a leave when “possible and practical”; if the actual date isn’t known, notify the employer of the need for the leave as soon as possible.
- For planned medical treatment, consulting with the employer to schedule the leave at a time that “minimizes disruptions” to the employer, so long as the treating healthcare provider approves the schedule.
- If the need for leave is unexpected, notify the employer as soon as possible and as practically.
If you fail to give your employer “timely or sufficient” notice of the need for leave under the act and there is no reasonable excuse for doing so, your employer may deny or delay your requested leave based on the facts of the requested leave.
Such a denial or delay can only take place if your employer actually informed you of the notice requirements.
Final thoughts
If you believe a request for FMLA leave was denied unfairly by your employer or experienced FMLA interference, consult with a nurse attorney or attorney as soon as possible in order to determine your rights under FMLA or state leave laws.
