July 25, 2014

The Letter of the Law Proves Equally As Applicable to Employees in Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Disputes

In many instances, it is the employer who is penalized for failing to strictly comply with the letter of the law in relation to FMLA leave and notices. Recently, however, an employee in the process of changing medical providers learned the hard way of the equal application of such requirements to both employer and employee, after the Court tossed her suit in finding such transition does not automatically absolve her of the requirement to submit a valid Certification of Health Care Provider (CHCP) to obtain FMLA leave in a timely manner.

In rejecting the employee’s FMLA interference claim (along with her FMLA retaliation allegations and state law claims), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in its opinion found here, opined as to the burden an employee must meet to demonstrate it was impracticable to comply with the letter of the law pertaining to FMLA certifications. In doing so, the Court found the employee must demonstrate that a diligent effort was made, albeit unsuccessfully, to obtain the certification in a timely manner if equitable tolling is to apply. Further, the court rejected any notion that an employer’s history of providing some leniency as to the deadline for accepting such certifications warranted a finding that the employee was free to submit her certification at any time.

Specifically, in Brookins v. Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., an employee suffering from a recurrence of breast cancer incurred a series of absences for which it was suggested she might want to apply for FMLA leave (after having used such leave on multiple occasions in the past).  Despite requests that she provided her CHCP for such leave within 15 days, the employee failed to do so, and her request for FMLA was thus denied. Ultimately, she was terminated for her unexcused absenteeism. As a result, she filed suit, alleging FMLA interference, among other claims.  Notably, the employee conceded that her certification had not been provided to Staples within the statutorily-required 15 days of its request for same, but argued that she had not been able to obtain such certification because: (1) her former doctor declined to provide a CHCP due to the fact that he was no longer the attending physician; and (2) her prospective doctor declined to provide a CHCP without having treated her yet. 

In rejecting these circumstances as an acceptable excuse for failing to meet the submission deadline, the Court noted a host of factors undermining any claim that the employee had acted diligently in attempting to obtain the certification, such as that the employee had made only a single call to each provider, had not explained the conundrum she faced, had failed to provide either doctor with a copy of the CHCP form itself for review or consideration, had not sought certification from any of the other doctors she saw for medical reasons in that surrounding time frame, and had made no effort to request additional time from Staples or explain her dilemma until after her deadline for submission of the form had passed. The Court further refused to consider Staples’ past leniency on accepting late submissions as a basis for finding the employee could submit certification at any time. Instead, the Court rigidly applied the statutory requirements and granted summary judgment in Staples’ favor on the interference claims, and confirming that it is not only employers – but also employees who seek to benefit from the law – that must show diligence in complying with the FMLA.


About the Author

Koryn M. McHone, Barnes Thornburg Law Firm, Labor Law Attorney

Koryn M. McHone is an associate in the Labor and Employment Department in the firm’s Indianapolis, Indiana office.

Ms. McHone represents management interests in employment litigation and providing employment counseling to employers of all sizes and with varying employment needs. She regularly defends employers in employment matters at the local, state and federal levels, including defense against claims of wrongful discharge, discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, breach of contract, wage/hour violations and violation of employee medical leave rights, among others. Ms...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.