An article from HR Dive published August 6, 2026, by Caroline Colvin reports on a recent court ruling that could significantly alter how employers handle Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) certification. The ruling suggests that employers may not always be required to wait for employees to rectify issues with the authenticity of FMLA certification documents before taking action. This decision, stemming from a case involving an employee of the City of Martinsville, Virginia, offers new guidance on the boundaries of employer inquiry and employee recourse when FMLA paperwork is questioned.
Background of the Case: A Disputed FMLA Certification
The plaintiff, an employee of the City of Martinsville, Virginia, sought to take FMLA leave in 2021 to care for his mother. This was not his first instance of utilizing FMLA; he had previously taken leave for the same purpose in 2020. When preparing the FMLA certification form for his 2021 leave, the employee himself filled out the "Health Care Provider" section. This section is typically designated for completion by a medical professional who has direct knowledge of the patient’s condition. Instead of having his mother’s doctor complete this part, the plaintiff utilized information from his 2020 certification form.
Following this, the employee presented the partially completed form to a nurse during his mother’s doctor’s appointment, who then signed it. The employee subsequently submitted the document to his supervisor and the city’s Human Resources department. However, an administrative assistant identified that the 2021 FMLA certification form had been improperly completed.
When confronted by his supervisor, the plaintiff acknowledged filling out the health care provider section but maintained that he had not attempted to deceive the signing nurse. Crucially, he offered to resubmit the form with the health care provider section accurately completed by a physician. Court documents indicate that the supervisor responded by stating the plaintiff had demonstrated poor judgment in completing the form himself, thereby casting doubt on his honesty. When the plaintiff declined to resign, he was terminated from his position.
Legal Challenge and FMLA Provisions
The terminated employee subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging that both his supervisor and the City of Martinsville had interfered with his FMLA rights. His claims centered on two main points: the alleged violation of FMLA regulations by contacting his mother’s medical provider, and his subsequent termination.
The FMLA, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), provides eligible employees with up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for specified family and medical reasons. A cornerstone of the FMLA process is the certification of a serious health condition by a healthcare provider. The regulations surrounding FMLA certification are designed to balance the employee’s need for leave with the employer’s need to verify the legitimacy of the request.
Under FMLA regulations, employers are permitted to contact an employee’s healthcare provider for clarification or authentication of FMLA certification. However, there are specific procedures that must be followed. Generally, employers must give employees a reasonable opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their certification. The Department of Labor’s Frequently Asked Questions page on FMLA compliance elaborates on this. If an employer deems a medical certification incomplete, they are obligated to inform the employee of the missing information and provide a "reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency."
This typically involves the employer specifying in writing what information is required and allowing at least seven calendar days for the employee to correct the issue. Exceptions to this seven-day period can be made if the employee demonstrates diligent good-faith efforts but the deficiency cannot be resolved within that timeframe.
The Court’s Interpretation and Remand
The crux of the current legal dispute lies in whether the employer’s obligation to provide an opportunity to cure applies equally to issues of authenticity as it does to completeness or insufficiency of FMLA certification. The court acknowledged that in scenarios involving incomplete or insufficient certification, employers generally must allow employees time to correct the errors. The Department of Labor guidance clearly supports this approach.
However, the court noted that the FMLA’s regulations are less explicit regarding the process an employer must follow when faced with concerns about the authenticity of a certification, as opposed to its completeness. The court stated that while employers can reach out to providers for clarification after an employee has had a chance to address any incompleteness or insufficiency, it remains unclear if this requirement extends to situations where the core authenticity of the document is in question.
Consequently, the court decided to remand the case back to the lower court. This action indicates that the initial court’s decision did not fully address or consider the nuances of authenticity issues within the FMLA certification process. The remand means the case will be reviewed again, with the lower court expected to further examine how the FMLA regulations apply to this specific situation involving a potentially fraudulent or improperly completed certification.
Implications for Employers and Employees
This ruling, while not definitively establishing a new precedent, signals a potential shift in how employers might navigate FMLA certification disputes. If employers are not strictly bound to offer a cure period for authenticity issues, it could empower them to take swifter action in cases where they suspect deliberate misrepresentation.
Key potential implications include:
- Increased Employer Scrutiny: Employers may feel more empowered to investigate and question the authenticity of FMLA certifications, particularly if they have grounds to suspect falsification.
- Employee Due Diligence: Employees will need to be exceptionally diligent in ensuring their FMLA certifications are accurate and properly completed by authorized healthcare providers. Any attempt to circumvent the process, even if seemingly minor, could carry significant consequences.
- Clarification Needed: The ambiguity highlighted by the court underscores the need for further clarification from regulatory bodies or higher courts on the precise obligations of employers when authenticity is questioned. The current ruling suggests that the "cure period" might be more narrowly applied to issues of incomplete information rather than outright authenticity concerns.
- Risk Management for Employers: Employers will need to carefully balance their right to verify FMLA claims with the risk of wrongful termination lawsuits. Documenting all interactions, communications, and decisions related to FMLA certification will be paramount.
- Impact on Employee Trust: While employers have a legitimate interest in preventing FMLA abuse, overly aggressive actions could erode employee trust and morale, potentially leading to a more litigious workforce.
Broader Context of FMLA Compliance
The FMLA is a critical piece of legislation designed to support employees during times of serious personal or family health crises. However, its administration can be complex, leading to misunderstandings and disputes between employers and employees. The U.S. Department of Labor actively provides guidance and resources to help both parties understand their rights and responsibilities.
According to the WHD, in 2023, the agency resolved over 10,000 FMLA complaints, recovering more than $20 million in back wages and damages for employees. These figures highlight the ongoing challenges in FMLA compliance. Cases like the one involving the City of Martinsville underscore the importance of clear and consistent application of FMLA regulations.
The legal landscape surrounding FMLA certification is continually evolving. Courts often grapple with interpreting the nuances of the law in specific factual contexts. This particular ruling, by remanding the case, opens the door for a more in-depth examination of what constitutes an employer’s obligation when faced with a potentially inauthentic FMLA certification. The outcome of this further review could provide much-needed clarity for employers nationwide, shaping how they approach situations where the integrity of FMLA documentation is called into question. Until then, employers are advised to proceed with caution, thorough documentation, and a clear understanding of current regulatory guidance, while remaining aware of the evolving legal interpretations.
About the Author
