n Mook v. City of Martinsville, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia has ruled that an employer’s failure to follow the procedure set forth in the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) when investigating an FMLA request precluded its motion to dismiss the case.
Law. Under the FMLA, employers with 50 or more employees must provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during a 12-month period for an employee:
- who has a serious health condition;
- to care for, or bond with, a newborn or newly adopted child; or
- to care for a spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition.
The FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny (or attempt to) deny the exercise of any right provided under the law.
To state a claim for FMLA interference, a plaintiff must show that: (1) they were an eligible employee; (2) the defendant was an FMLA-defined employer; (3) they are entitled to leave under the statute; (4) they gave notice to the employer that they would take FMLA leave; and (5) the defendant denied their FMLA rights.
Facts. An employee, whose mother suffered from several severe illnesses and required assistance to perform many daily activities, requested FMLA leave to care for her. The employer responded by providing the employee with a blank “Certification of Health Care Provider for Family Member’s Serious Health Condition” to be completed and signed by his mother’s medical provider. However, when the employee returned the medical certification form, the employer had suspicions about its authenticity.
The employer had contacted the mother’s health care provider and it was revealed that the employee had himself completed most of the certification form and had given it to his mother’s physician to be signed. After speaking with his mother’s healthcare provider, the employee was accused of forging the certification form and fired. In response, the employee sued for interference with his FMLA rights.
Court Decision. The court began by citing prior case law which provides that, “[A]n employer’s conduct may constitute interference with an employee’s FMLA rights if it would have a chilling effect and would discourage employees from exercising their FMLA rights.”
It also noted that FMLA regulations provide that an employee must furnish a complete and sufficient certification to the employer, if required by the employer. The employer must advise an employee whenever it finds a certification incomplete or insufficient, and notify the employee in writing what additional information is necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient.
Most importantly, the court noted that while an “employer may contact the health care provider for purposes of clarification and authentication of the medical certification,” this can only be done “after the employer has given the employee an opportunity to cure any deficiencies as set forth in [the FMLA regulations].” Therefore, FMLA procedures required the employer to go to the employee before contacting the health care provider for clarification.
In light of the employer’s failure to follow FMLA procedures, the court ruled that the employee had stated an FMLA interference claim and denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the case.