29 C.F.R. § 825.308

Recertifications for leave taken because of an employee's own serious health condition or the serious health condition of a family member

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

(a) 30-day rule. An employer may request recertification no more often than every 30 days and only in connection with an absence by the employee, unless paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section apply.

(b) More than 30 days. If the medical certification indicates that the minimum duration of the condition is more than 30 days, an employer must wait until that minimum duration expires before requesting a recertification, unless paragraph (c) of this section applies. For example, if the medical certification states that an employee will be unable to work, whether continuously or on an intermittent basis, for 40 days, the employer must wait 40 days before requesting a recertification. In all cases, an employer may request a recertification of a medical condition every six months in connection with an absence by the employee. Accordingly, even if the medical certification indicates that the employee will need intermittent or reduced schedule leave for a period in excess of six months (e.g., for a lifetime condition), the employer would be permitted to request recertification every six months in connection with an absence.

(c) Less than 30 days. An employer may request recertification in less than 30 days if:

(1) The employee requests an extension of leave;

(2) Circumstances described by the previous certification have changed significantly (e.g., the duration or frequency of the absence, the nature or severity of the illness, complications). For example, if a medical certification stated that an employee would need leave for one to two days when the employee suffered a migraine headache and the employee's absences for his or her last two migraines lasted four days each, then the increased duration of absence might constitute a significant change in circumstances allowing the employer to request a recertification in less than 30 days. Likewise, if an employee had a pattern of using unscheduled FMLA leave for migraines in conjunction with his or her scheduled days off, then the timing of the absences also might constitute a significant change in circumstances sufficient for an employer to request a recertification more frequently than every 30 days; or

(3) The employer receives information that casts doubt upon the employee's stated reason for the absence or the continuing validity of the certification. For example, if an employee is on FMLA leave for four weeks due to the employee's knee surgery, including recuperation, and the employee plays in company softball league games during the employee's third week of FMLA leave, such information might be sufficient to cast doubt upon the continuing validity of the certification allowing the employer to request a recertification in less than 30 days.

(d) Timing. The employee must provide the requested recertification to the employer within the time frame requested by the employer (which must allow at least 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.

(e) Content. The employer may ask for the same information when obtaining recertification as that permitted for the original certification as set forth in § 825.306. The employee has the same obligations to participate and cooperate (including providing a complete and sufficient certification or adequate authorization to the health care provider) in the recertification process as in the initial certification process. See § 825.305(d). As part of the information allowed to be obtained on recertification for leave taken because of a serious health condition, the employer may provide the health care provider with a record of the employee's absence pattern and ask the health care provider if the serious health condition and need for leave is consistent with such a pattern.

(f) Any recertification requested by the employer shall be at the employee's expense unless the employer provides otherwise. No second or third opinion on recertification may be required.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Eirik Tillman v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 545 F. App'x 340 (6th Cir. 2013).
Eirik Tillman v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 545 F. App'x 340 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 9× “10 After the initial certification, an employer may require subsequent recertifications subject to the restrictions set forth 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 . The regulations provide that an employer may not request recertification more frequently than every 30 days.”
James Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Grp., LLC, 763 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 (c)(2); see also Holder v.”
Linda K. Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 427 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 825.308 . Furthermore, upon proper notification, the employer may require the employee to submit a “fitness-for-duty” certification by her health care provider as a condition of returning to work.”
Campbell v. Jefferson Univ. Physicians, 22 F. Supp. 3d 478 (E.D. Pa. 2014). · cites it 5× “In her contentions as to the interference claim in her response to JUP’s summary judgment motion, Campbell raises for the first time the argument that JUP interfered with her FMLA rights by improperly conducting the recertification process that 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 provides her.…”
Brandon Whittington v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 21 F.4th 997 (8th Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “]” 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 (b). 2 Three exceptions to this rule are specified.”
Rush v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 911 F. Supp. 2d 545 (S.D. Ohio 2012). · cites it 9× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 . “If the medical certification indicates that the minimum duration of the condition is more than 30 days, an employer must wait until that minimum duration expires before requesting a recertification[.”
Holladay v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 357 F. Supp. 3d 848 (S.D. Iowa 2019). · cites it 7× “67934 -01, at 68022 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 . This balance reflects the broader purposes of the FMLA, which include "entitl[ing] employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons .”
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2012). “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 (c). Congress included this notice requirement in order to balance the employee’s entitlement to “reasonable leave” with the “legitimate interests of employers.”
Mills v. Temple Univ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D. Pa. 2012). · cites it 3× ““After the initial certification, an employee may require subsequent recertifications subject to the restrictions set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 .” Gibson v. Lafayette Manor, Inc.”
Cloutier v. Gojet Airlines, LLC, 311 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 (b) ("If the medical certification indicates that the minimum duration of the condition is more than 30 days, an employer must wait until that minimum duration expires before requesting a recertification .”
Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012). “307 (a), (2) by requiring that he recertify his need for FMLA leave every thirty days, in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 (b), (3) by failing to designate as FMLA leave his absence on November 14, 2009, contrary to 29 C.”
Howard v. INOVA Health Care Servs., 302 F. App'x 166 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Inova also points out that its policy, consistent with 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 , entitles it to request recertification of an FMLA-qualifying chronic condition every 30 days.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(a) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(b) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(c)(3) — 1 case
Rush v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 911 F. Supp. 2d 545 (S.D. Ohio 2012). “See also 29 C.F.R. § 825.308 . “If the medical certification indicates that the minimum duration of the condition is more than 30 days, an employer must wait until that minimum duration expires before requesting a recertification[.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(d) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(f) — 1 case
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.