HR manager didn’t follow company policy for his own FMLA leave, and got terminated for it

In early 2023, Frank, an HR manager, suffered from severe right shoulder arthritis. Starting on February 21, he decided to take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to manage his health issues, eventually opting for surgery.

The employer’s policy indicated that requests for FMLA leave be made through the HR Department on the forms provided. The forms required employees to provide a medical certification to support the absence.

When Frank first asked for leave, he didn’t submit a medical certification. He argued that delayed submission of such paperwork was, nonetheless, consistent with the employer’s customary practice. During his tenure as HR manager, he would also retroactively approve FMLA leave for employees who began their leave before filling out the required paperwork.

On March 9, Debra, a company director, sent Frank a letter reminding him to submit the medical certification by March 17. When Frank failed to do so, Debra sent him a second, third, and fourth reminder, extending the deadline each time. In the last two letters, she warned Frank that failure to comply with the company leave policies could result in his termination.

Frank didn’t submit a certification until May 4. It excused his absence beginning May 2, but didn’t address his absences from February 21 to May 1. He never provided documentation covering the prior absences or a reason for them.

On July 7, before he could return to work, the employer informed Frank that his employment was terminated. The termination letter cited his “failure to provide the healthcare certifications required” by company policies, which resulted in his incurring “multiple unexcused absences in violation of the” company’s personnel code.

Frank sued, but the court sided with the employer, despite the suspicious timing of the termination. It first noted that when an employee takes leave without complying with the employer’s internal leave policies, they haven’t “engaged in any activity protected by the FMLA.” Also, since Frank failed to provide a certification supporting his leave from February 21 to May 1, the FMLA didn’t cover his time off, and he didn’t engage in FMLA-protected activity.

Bergman v. St. Clair County, Southern District of Illinois, No. 3:24-CV-02374, September 23, 2026.

Key to remember: If an employee fails to provide a requested FMLA certification without justification, employers may deny FMLA protections.

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.