Yes, the FMLA Paperwork Matters.

And “[e]mployers must be able to investigate and address plausible allegations that employees have been dishonest in their medical leave claims,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In Shipton v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, the employee was approved in August 2017 for intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for diabetes-related episodes of hypoglycemia, and the approval was renewed in January 2018. In April 2018, he took off two days due to diabetes-related neuropathy. The employer informed him that the existing FMLA certification covered only hypoglycemia. The employee thought that his certifications covered all diabetes-related conditions and that he could use FMLA leave for neuropathy. The employer also questioned whether the employee could safely operate a commercial vehicle, which was part of his job. In response, he submitted a letter from his doctor, stating that he had not suffered from hypoglycemia since 2017. He then submitted a new medical certification for his neuropathy, which was approved. Nonetheless, the employer terminated his employment based on “conflicting medical documentation.” The employee sued, alleging interference with his FMLA rights and retaliation. The federal district court threw out his claims, granting summary judgment for the employer.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit noted that the employer had an honest belief that the employee did not take FMLA leave for an approved purpose, and the termination decision was based on this belief. As the Fourth Circuit stated, “The record demonstrates conflicting paperwork, and therefore [the employee]’s argument that just because he submitted a later request nullifies the claim of misconduct is incorrect.” The Fourth Circuit went on to emphasize that employers can investigate and terminate employees for their dishonest use of medical leave, and such action does not constitute interference or retaliation under the FMLA. The Fourth Circuit reiterated the principle that it “do[es] not sit as a kind of super-personnel department weighing the prudence of employment decisions,” but rather its role is to “determine whether the employer’s reason was legitimate and nondiscriminatory at the time and not whether the reason was wise, fair, or even correct.”  The fact that the employee can now explain the discrepancies does not impact the employer’s reasoning at the time of termination.

This case provides reassurance to employers that they can – and should – take action when it appears that an employee is not being honest about their use of medical leave. Of course, any investigation should be appropriately thorough, and any decision should be legitimate and reasonable – and consistent with how other employees are treated for similar misconduct.