Employer didn’t follow all FMLA certification steps before termination

On October 17, 2024, after working for the company for a few years, Mallory needed some time off to care for her son. He had been diagnosed with a rare form of cancer by his dermatologist, Dr. Julie. In response, Rebecca from HR gave Mallory information about the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and included a certification for Mallory to have completed by the health care provider and returned within 15 days.

The employer, however, approved Mallory’s FMLA leave on October 18 without waiting for the completed certification.

On November 4, two days after the 15-day deadline, Rebecca emailed Mallory asking whether she had completed the certification form. Mallory said she would have it after her son’s appointment later that day.

When Rebecca didn’t receive a response, the next day she followed up again, saying she needed the form by the end of the day. Shortly after, Mallory provided the form, but the part with the health care provider information was incomplete. Rebecca asked that Mallory have Julie, the doctor, complete that part and get the form by the end of the week. But Dr. Julie was on maternity leave.

So, Mallory contacted her son’s patient advocate and added the names and contact information of Dr. Mary Austin and Dr. Jonathan Gill.

Rebecca thought the signature didn’t match the names of Drs. Austin and Gill. She told Mallory that the form didn’t include any information about who signed the form. Rebecca contacted the advocate and asked whether the form was “legitimate.” The advocate confirmed via email that neither Dr. Austin nor Dr. Gill signed the form, and told Rebecca that she could ask the referring doctor, and named Dr. Croley.

Instead, the employer fired Mallory for falsifying the certification. Mallory explained that Dr. Julie had signed the form, and that Drs. Austin and Gill were the doctors she expected to treat her son.

Mallory sued, claiming both FMLA interference and retaliation.

In court, Mallory argued that the employer’s reason for firing her was pretextual because:

• It couldn’t have formed a good-faith belief that the certification was falsified without contacting Dr. Croley, and
• The close time between her FMLA request and termination was sufficient evidence of pretext.

Mallory pointed out that the signature on the certification resembled a “J” and a scribble, and since Dr. Gill’s first name is Jonathan and Dr. Julie’s name also began with a “J,” there was a question of whether it was reasonable for the employer to be suspicious of the signature.

The court sided with the employee, pointing out that, given that the signature was a “J” and a scribble, the employer should have followed up as the advocate suggested.

Jones v. Axios Industrial Maintenance Contractors, Inc., Southern District of Texas, No. 4:25-cv-02232, September 11, 2026.

Key to remember: Employers should follow all the leads when trying to determine if an FMLA certification is falsified or not.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.