Employment Law Update: Employment Law Update: Fourth Circuit Examines Employers’ FMLA Certification Requirements Amid Suspected Fraud
Date: October 22, 2026
This past August, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion addressing the extent to which employers may investigate suspected fraud or inauthenticity in an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) medical certification. In Mook v. Hall, 185 F.4th 456 (4th Cir. 2026), the court held that the FMLA regulations do not clearly establish that an employer must provide an employee an opportunity to cure concerns about the authenticity of a medical certification before contacting the certifying healthcare provider.
Under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c), employers must notify an employee when an FMLA certification is “incomplete or insufficient” and identify in writing “what additional information is necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient.” Then, under § 825.307(a), an employer may contact the healthcare provider for purposes of authentication or clarification after providing the employee an opportunity to “cure any deficiencies as set forth in § 825.305(c).” The court explained that, because (1) this provision expressly refers back to only the regulation addressing incomplete or insufficient certifications, and (2) because the term “deficiency” means “the absence of something essential,” a reasonable official could interpret the cure requirement as not extending to concerns about a certification’s authenticity. Accordingly, the court concluded that it was not clearly established, at the time of the events in question, that an employer was required to provide an opportunity to cure suspected inauthenticity before contacting the certifying healthcare provider.
Importantly, however, the court did not definitively determine whether the FMLA regulations permit employers to bypass the cure requirement when they suspect a certification is inauthentic. Rather, the opinion addressed the narrower question of whether the employee’s asserted right to a cure period was sufficiently established to overcome a government official’s qualified immunity defense. The court concluded that it was not, vacated the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity on that basis, and remanded for consideration of whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to FMLA interference claims in the first place.
Accordingly, employers should continue to exercise caution when concerns arise regarding an employee’s FMLA certification. If a certification is incomplete because one or more applicable entries have not been completed, or insufficient because the information provided is vague, ambiguous, or nonresponsive, employers must notify the employee in writing of the particular deficiencies and generally provide seven calendar days to cure them. Further, if an employer contacts the healthcare provider to authenticate a certification, the inquiry must be limited to verifying whether the provider completed or authorized the certification; no additional medical information may be requested. Employers may also seek clarification of information already provided, subject to the requirements of § 825.307(a) and the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Finally, § 825.307(a) expressly prohibits an employee’s direct supervisor from contacting the healthcare provider. Such communications must instead be conducted by an authorized individual, such as a human resources professional, leave administrator, healthcare provider, or management official other than the employee’s direct supervisor.
Failure to comply with applicable FMLA certification requirements may expose an employer to an interference claim under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). Where the employee establishes resulting prejudice, available remedies may include lost wages and benefits, liquidated damages, reinstatement or other equitable relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
For guidance regarding FMLA compliance and medical certification procedures, please contact a member of Whiteford’s Labor and Employment team.
*Senior Law Clerk
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.