Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—N.D. Ala.: Employee’s failure to properly certify leave request was fatal to her interference and retaliation claims, (Dec 8, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The automobile manufacturer’s denial of the employee’s leave and certification conformed with the time restrictions in the FMLA regulations.

A production worker’s failure to properly certify her request for leave under the FMLA, and her failure to cure the certification within the statutory timeframe, doomed her claims against the employer for interference and retaliation. Accordingly, a federal district court in Alabama granted summary judgment to the employer on both claims and dismissed the case (Christian v. Sanoh America, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-899-HDM (N.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2025)).

The employee was a production worker for an automobile manufacturer. Her job required her to occasionally lift boxes that weighed approximately 20 pounds. The employer relied on an attendance policy under which employees accumulated “points” for unexcused absences, with six points resulting in termination. While she worked for the employer, the employee suffered from nerve pain in her neck, back, and arm that would give her severe headaches and cause her arm to go numb. She sought treatment from a chiropractor.

First warning. On March 6, 2024, the employer gave the employee her first warning when she accumulated four attendance points. Two days later, the employee requested FMLA leave. The employer asked her to certify that leave with her medical provider by March 25.

Certification form. The chiropractor’s office returned a certification form on March 21, but the employer concluded that the form was insufficient because (1) it failed to indicate whether the condition necessitated absences from work, (2) it provided vague treatment instructions in which the employee would need treatment “at her own discretion,” and (3) it failed to provide sufficient detail on the employee’s restriction from heavy lifting. The employee was given seven days to cure the certification.

Five days later the employer received another certification form, but, again, it contained insufficient information regarding the employee’s “treatment at her own discretion” and the deadline for the restriction on heavy lifting. The employer denied the certification and gave the employee a further seven days to cure the insufficient paperwork.

Termination. Over the next week and a half, two submissions were received from the chiropractor’s office, but both submissions were identical to the former certification paperwork submitted—the paperwork the employer concluded was insufficient. The employer concluded that this subsequent certification was also insufficient and it denied the employee’s leave on April 9, 2024. As a result, the employee’s absences from work were not excused, she received the additional absence points, and, consistent with its attendance policy, the employer terminated her for accumulating six points between March 8 and April 8 of that year.

The employee then brought suit against the employer, claiming that the employer interfered with her rights under the FMLA when it denied her requests for leave to treat her neck condition. She further claimed that the employer terminated her in retaliation for her attempted use of that leave. The employer moved for summary judgment on both claims.

Failure to certify. The employer argued that the employee failed to properly certify her request for leave under the FMLA, which prevented her from being entitled to that leave and therefore prevented her from asserting successful interference and retaliation claims. The employee contended that her failure to certify was evidence of the employer’s interference and retaliation.

The court agreed with the employer, holding that the employee could not genuinely dispute that she failed to properly certify her paperwork within the statutory period, which meant that she failed to show that she was entitled to leave under the Act. This was fatal to both her interference and retaliation claims.

The employer argued that the employee failed to submit sufficient certification paperwork to entitle her to leave and then failed to cure the deficient certification within the statutory timeframe when given multiple opportunities to do so. Conversely, the employee contended that the employer did not give her adequate opportunity to cure the defects in her certification paperwork and that it kept “moving the goalposts” to prevent her from curing the insufficiencies.

Regulations. To be entitled to leave after an employer requests certification, FMLA regulations provide that the employee “must provide a complete and sufficient certification to the employer.” A certification is sufficient if it states, among other things, the appropriate medical facts of the condition, the probable duration of the condition, and a brief statement that the employee is unable to perform the functions of their position. Certification “is considered insufficient if the employer receives a complete certification, but the information provided is vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive.” If the employer concludes the certification is insufficient, it must provide the employee seven days to cure any deficiency. And if the employee fails to cure the deficiencies specified by the employer, the employer may deny the request for leave.

The employee here failed to provide sufficient certification to qualify for leave and the employer gave her sufficient time to cure her certification—which she failed to do. The employee argued that the timeline to cure is an issue of fact that prevented the employer from being entitled to summary judgment. However, said the court, the employee failed to show that a genuine dispute of material fact existed over the timeline. The court noted that she was given ample time to submit her original certification paperwork and, each time that the employer requested she cure the deficiencies, she was given seven days to do so. She was given seven days after her first submission on March 21 and then seven more days after her second submission on March 27. Those dates showed that the employer conformed with the time requirements in the FMLA regulations.

Further, the employee argued that the employer kept “moving the goalposts” for the information required to cure the paperwork, but that was also incorrect, the court said. In its original denial, the employer asked for more information regarding the employee’s restrictions on her work, how long those restrictions would last, and what “treatment at her own discretion” meant. When the employee submitted the second set of certification paperwork, it only defined what her restrictions were, i.e. that she could not lift more than 20 pounds. But the paperwork failed to provide more information regarding any more details on her condition, how long the heavy lifting restriction would last, and what “treatment at her own discretion” meant.

And after three attempts, the employer concluded that the certification was insufficient and applied the absence points, which led to the employee’s termination under the attendance policy. Thus, said the court, the employer’s denial of the employee’s leave and certification conformed with the time restrictions in the FMLA regulations and its classification that the certification was insufficient conformed with the statute.

Retaliation claim. The employee also failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation because she could not show that she engaged in statutorily protected conduct or that her termination was causally related to that conduct. As noted above, the employee never properly certified her request for leave. Thus, she did not participate in protected conduct, and, therefore, she could not show that there was a causal relationship between her termination and protected conduct.

However, said the court, even if the employee could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination—the employee accumulated six points for her attendance policy after she failed to cure her deficient certification. The employee contended that the employer’s “shifting explanation” for the deficiencies in the paperwork were inconsistent and that she diligently tried to cure the paperwork within the stated time frame.

However, said the court, the employer’s explanations for why her paperwork was deficient conformed with the FMLA and the employee’s diligence did not resolve the fact that she failed to cure her paperwork within the required seven days. That failure meant that her absences were unexcused, and she accumulated sufficient absence points under the employer’s policy to be fired. Thus, the employee failed to rebut the employer’s reason “head on” or show a genuine dispute of material fact that its proffered reason for her termination was pretext for discrimination.

Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on both claims and dismissed the case.

The case is No. 5:24-cv-899-HDM.

Judge: Mooty, H.

Attorneys: Ramon Martin (The Justice Law Firm) for Amanda Christian. Brian Dershaw (Taft Stettinius & Hollister) for Sanoh America Inc.

Companies: Sanoh America, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation AlabamaNews