29 C.F.R. § 825.305

Certification, general rule

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. An employer may require that an employee's leave to care for the employee's covered family member with a serious health condition, or due to the employee's own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform one or more of the essential functions of the employee's position, be supported by a certification issued by the health care provider of the employee or the employee's family member. An employer may also require that an employee's leave because of a qualifying exigency or to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness be supported by a certification, as described in §§ 825.309 and 825.310, respectively. An employer must give notice of a requirement for certification each time a certification is required; such notice must be written notice whenever required by § 825.300(c). An employer's oral request to an employee to furnish any subsequent certification is sufficient.

(b) Timing. In most cases, the employer should request that an employee furnish certification at the time the employee gives notice of the need for leave or within five business days thereafter, or, in the case of unforeseen leave, within five business days after the leave commences. The employer may request certification at some later date if the employer later has reason to question the appropriateness of the leave or its duration. The employee must provide the requested certification to the employer within 15 calendar days after the employer's request, unless it is not practicable under the particular circumstances to do so despite the employee's diligent, good faith efforts or the employer provides more than 15 calendar days to return the requested certification.

(c) Complete and sufficient certification. The employee must provide a complete and sufficient certification to the employer if required by the employer in accordance with §§ 825.306, 825.309, and 825.310. The employer shall advise an employee whenever the employer finds a certification incomplete or insufficient, and shall state in writing what additional information is necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient. A certification is considered incomplete if the employer receives a certification, but one or more of the applicable entries have not been completed. A certification is considered insufficient if the employer receives a complete certification, but the information provided is vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive. The employer must provide the employee with seven calendar days (unless not practicable under the particular circumstances despite the employee's diligent good faith efforts) to cure any such deficiency. If the deficiencies specified by the employer are not cured in the resubmitted certification, the employer may deny the taking of FMLA leave, in accordance with § 825.313. A certification that is not returned to the employer is not considered incomplete or insufficient, but constitutes a failure to provide certification.

(d) Consequences. At the time the employer requests certification, the employer must also advise an employee of the anticipated consequences of an employee's failure to provide adequate certification. If the employee fails to provide the employer with a complete and sufficient certification, despite the opportunity to cure the certification as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, or fails to provide any certification, the employer may deny the taking of FMLA leave, in accordance with § 825.313. It is the employee's responsibility either to furnish a complete and sufficient certification or to furnish the health care provider providing the certification with any necessary authorization from the employee or the employee's family member in order for the health care provider to release a complete and sufficient certification to the employer to support the employee's FMLA request. This provision will apply in any case where an employer requests a certification permitted by these regulations, whether it is the initial certification, a recertification, a second or third opinion, or a fitness for duty certificate, including any clarifications necessary to determine if such certifications are authentic and sufficient. See §§ 825.306, 825.307, 825.308, and 825.312.

(e) Annual medical certification. Where the employee's need for leave due to the employee's own serious health condition, or the serious health condition of the employee's covered family member, lasts beyond a single leave year (as defined in § 825.200), the employer may require the employee to provide a new medical certification in each subsequent leave year. Such new medical certifications are subject to the provisions for authentication and clarification set forth in § 825.307, including second and third opinions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 249 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Tina Wallace v. FedEx Corporation
Tina Wallace v. FedEx Corporation (2014) ca6 · cites it 13× “The court denied this motion, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that FedEx failed to follow 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (2007), 3 which requires the company to explain the consequences of not returning the medical-certification form within fifteen days.”
Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America (2016) ca2 · cites it 4× “While defendants did question the sufficiency of that form and informed Graziadio on July 17 that it was deficient, Graziadio timely — within the seven-day period pro *426 vided in the FMLA, see 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (c) (“The employer must provide the employee with seven calendar…”
Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. (2011) ca10 · cites it 6× “According to Twigg, the “incomplete” certification triggered HBC’s obligations under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (d) (2008), which states that “[t]he employer shall advise an employee whenever the employer finds a certification incomplete, and provide the employee a reasonable…”
James Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Group, LLC (2014) ca7 · cites it 6× “§ 2613 (a); see 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (b). The health care provider’s certification for intermittent leave “shall be sufficient” if it provides the date the serious health condition began, its probable duration, appropriate medical facts about the condition, “a statement that the…”
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co. (2003) michctapp · cites it 18× “29 C.F.R. 825.305. [7] 29 C.F.R. 825.302(g) provides: An employer may waive employees' FMLA notice requirements.”
Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc. (2002) paed · cites it 7× “29 C.F.R. § 825.305 . Moreover, the employer must provide the employee with at least 15 calendar days to submit the medical certification.”
Wheeler v. Pioneer Developmental Services, Inc. (2004) mad · cites it 11× “§ 2613 (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.305. After it receives certification, the employer may then ask the employee to obtain a second and even a third opinion from a different health care provider, including one chosen by the employer.”
Bass v. Potter (2008) ca10 · cites it 7× “§ 2613 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (b); see also id. § 2613(b)(2) (a “sufficient” certification is one that, inter alia, states “the probable duration of the condition”).”
Peter J. Kauffman v. Federal Express Corporation (2005) ca7 · cites it 4× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (b); Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc.”
Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center (2007) ca6 · cites it 4× “2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (d)); Hoffman v. Professional Med Team, 394 F.”
Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (1998) cand · cites it 9× “§ 2613 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (a). “An employer must give written notice of a requirement for medical certification .”
Charles S. Sorrell, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Rinker Materials Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appella (2005) ca6 · cites it 6× “Opremcak’s medical certification incomplete or to provide him a reasonable opportunity to cure any deficiency in the certification, as it is required to do under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (d) 1 (providing that “[t]he employer shall advise an employee whenever the employer finds a…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(a) — 7 cases
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co. (2003) michctapp “29 C.F.R. 825.305. [7] 29 C.F.R. 825.302(g) provides: An employer may waive employees' FMLA notice requirements.”
Wheeler v. Pioneer Developmental Services, Inc. (2004) mad “§ 2613 (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.305. After it receives certification, the employer may then ask the employee to obtain a second and even a third opinion from a different health care provider, including one chosen by the employer.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) — 11 cases
Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Co. (2003) michctapp “29 C.F.R. 825.305. [7] 29 C.F.R. 825.302(g) provides: An employer may waive employees' FMLA notice requirements.”
Wheeler v. Pioneer Developmental Services, Inc. (2004) mad “§ 2613 (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.305. After it receives certification, the employer may then ask the employee to obtain a second and even a third opinion from a different health care provider, including one chosen by the employer.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c) — 6 cases
Wheeler v. Pioneer Developmental Services, Inc. (2004) mad “§ 2613 (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.305. After it receives certification, the employer may then ask the employee to obtain a second and even a third opinion from a different health care provider, including one chosen by the employer.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(d) — 7 cases
Wheeler v. Pioneer Developmental Services, Inc. (2004) mad “§ 2613 (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.305. After it receives certification, the employer may then ask the employee to obtain a second and even a third opinion from a different health care provider, including one chosen by the employer.”
Charles S. Sorrell, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Rinker Materials Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appella (2005) ca6 “Opremcak’s medical certification incomplete or to provide him a reasonable opportunity to cure any deficiency in the certification, as it is required to do under 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (d) 1 (providing that “[t]he employer shall advise an employee whenever the employer finds a…”
Brady v. Potter (2007) ohnd
DeLong v. Trujillo (2000) coloctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.