Summary
The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court decision denying qualified immunity to an employer sued for alleged interference with Family and Medical Leave Act rights. The court held that, in November 2021, it was not clearly established that an employer had to give an employee an opportunity to cure an allegedly inauthentic FMLA certification before contacting the certifying medical provider for authentication. The court directed the district court to address on remand whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to FMLA interference claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fourth Circuit had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity when the denial turned on the legal question whether FMLA regulations clearly established a right to an opportunity to cure an authenticity problem before employer contact with the certifying medical provider.
- Whether it was clearly established in November 2021 that an employer could not contact a certifying medical provider to authenticate an employee's FMLA certification without first giving the employee an opportunity to cure any inauthenticity.
- Whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to an FMLA interference claim.
Holdings
- The court had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of qualified immunity because the denial turned on a pure issue of law concerning whether the asserted right was clearly established.
- It was not clearly established in November 2021 that an employer had to give an employee an opportunity to cure an inauthenticity in an FMLA certification before contacting the certifying health-care provider for authentication.
- The court did not decide whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to an FMLA interference claim; that antecedent statutory-interpretation question was left for the district court to decide in the first instance on remand.
Key quotations
“We conclude the answer is no; therefore, we vacate the district court’s contrary judgment denying qualified immunity to the defendant employer on this basis.” (3)
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude it was not clearly established in November 2021 that an employer must first give an employee an opportunity to cure any inauthenticity of an FMLA certification before contacting the certifying medical provider to authenticate the certification.” (16)
“Because Hall would be entitled to qualified immunity on these facts if such immunity is available for FMLA interference claims, we remand for the district court to resolve whether qualified immunity applies to the FMLA.” (19)
Factual background
Daniel Mook, a former Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Martinsville, requested FMLA leave in 2021 to care for his ailing mother. Mook completed the health-care-provider portion of an FMLA certification using information from a prior certification, and a registered nurse signed the form; the City later contacted the provider's office to determine whether the signature and certification were authentic. After discussing the matter with Mook, Hall concluded that Mook's conduct reflected poor judgment and dishonesty, offered him the opportunity to resign, and fired him when he declined.
Procedural history
Mook sued Hall and the City of Martinsville, alleging that they interfered with his FMLA rights by contacting his mother's medical provider to authenticate an FMLA certification and then terminating his employment. Hall moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court assumed qualified immunity was available for the FMLA interference claim but denied Hall's motion, concluding that FMLA regulations clearly established Mook's right to notice and an opportunity to cure any inauthenticity before provider contact. Hall took an interlocutory appeal.
Remand instructions
The district court must determine in the first instance whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to FMLA interference claims. If qualified immunity applies, Hall would be entitled to immunity on the facts because the asserted right was not clearly established.