Fitness-for-Duty Certifications for Return from FMLA Leave Need Not be Detailed

December 19, 2005

In Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") requires an employer to reinstate an employee who has been on FMLA leave when the employee submits a simple statement from his or her health care provider that the employee may return to work ("fitness-for-duty certification"), even if the statement is not as detailed as the employer would prefer, and the employer feels that it needs more information regarding the employee's ability to perform his or her job.  In Brumbalough, the plaintiff often worked more than 60 hours a week, and was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  In June 2001, she asked for and was granted FMLA leave.  Her employer told her she was required to provide a fitness-for-duty certification prior to being reinstated.

In late July, the plaintiff notified her employer that she was better and would come back to work in the next week or so.  The employer sent her a detailed letter for her physician, describing her job duties and requesting the physician to read the letter and sign off on the fact that the employee could perform all of those functions.  The employee did not return this letter, but instead claimed that she faxed the employer a handwritten note from her physician which stated, "She may return to work on 8/13/01.  She may work a 40-45 hour week and limit her out-of-town travel to one day per week."  The employer sent another letter asking the plaintiff to return the completed certification letter, and telling her that if the letter was not received within the next 7 days, her employment would be terminated.  The employer extended the deadline another 5 days, but the employee still failed to return the company's proposed certification letter.  Her employment was terminated. 

The plaintiff sued, claiming that the employer violated the FMLA by refusing to reinstate her.  The trial court granted judgment for the employer as a matter of law, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and allowed the plaintiff to proceed to trial.  The Court of Appeals rejected the employer's contention that the plaintiff had not submitted a proper fitness-for-duty certification, and that it was therefore entitled to terminate her.  The Court found that if the plaintiff had faxed the short note from her physician to the employer, as she claimed, that note might have been sufficient to require the employer to reinstate the employee.  The Court also rejected the employer's argument that it had the right to terminate the plaintiff's employment because the physician had limited the employee's ability to work all of the hours required for the job.  The Court sent this issue back to the trial court because it felt there was a factual dispute about whether working more than 45 hours per week was an essential function of the employee's job.

This opinion follows a recent trend in which courts have strictly interpreted FMLA regulations concerning reinstatement.  Although an employer may require an employee to submit a fitness-for-duty certification as a condition for reinstatement,  the regulations are very specific that the fitness-for-duty certification need only be " a simple statement of an employee's ability to return to work."  Further, the regulations specifically indicate that the employer "may not require additional information" as a condition of returning to work.  With the employee's permission, a health care provider for the employer may contact the employee's health care provider for clarification concerning the employee's ability to perform his or her job, but may not delay the employee's return to work while contact with the health care provider is being made. 

If you have any questions regarding this alert or other Employment Law related questions, please contact Louis Meyer at 919.783.2810 or lmeyer@poyners.com or Susie Gibbons at 919.783.2813 or sgibbons@poynerspruill.com.