In Townsend-Taylor v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 523 F.3d 815 (CA 7 2008), a married couple missed work and retroactively sought FMLA leave. Both missed deadlines for submission of medical certification forms. Neither’s lack of diligence resulted in interference with their FMLA rights.

Diedre Townsend-Taylor and Ronnie Taylor (husband and wife) brought suit against Ameritech Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act following their termination from Ameritech.

Perhaps due to a large number of FMLA leave requests, Ameritech employed a separate entity, the FMLA Processing Unit (“FPU”), to handle such requests. Ameritech has a specific process for handling FMLA leave requests. When an employee requests FMLA leave, he is given a “Certification of Health Care Provider” form. That form contains the employee’s name and a bar code that represents the employee’s social security number. The employee requesting leave is instructed that his doctor must submit the completed form within 15 days to FPU (located in San Antonio, Texas) via fax or mail. The Taylors worked for Ameritech in Wisconsin. The FMLA permits submission of such forms within 15 days “unless it is not practicable under the particular circumstances to do so despite the employee’s diligent, good faith efforts.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b). Ameritech offers a little leeway to the 15 day submission requirement as it allows employees 20 days to submit the certification form before it will regard the filing untimely.


In April 2004, Mr. Taylor was absent from work for several days to care for his child. When he returned to work on May 3, his supervisor provided him with the certification form. As of May 24, Mr. Taylor still had not submitted the form so Ameritech sent him a notice of denial. The notice also indicated that Mr. Taylor would have 15 more days to submit proof of extenuating circumstances for his failure to file the certification in a timely manner.

Taylor’s doctor did respond within that 15 day period indicating that he had “filled out FMLA papers for this occurrence on at least 3 separate occasions and either faxed them to the [Ameritech] office or gave them directly to the parents.”

FPU possessed no record of this occurring. Mr. Taylor suspected the problem may have resulted from his submission of a certification form that had his wife’s name and social security number. He speculated that these forms had been lost by FPU as a result and that FPU had thus interfered with FMLA rights because Ameritech did not stress the importance of the bar code and the noninterchangeability of such forms. Taylor claimed that he had crossed out his wife’s name and written in his own.

The court of appeals noted that interference can result from providing an employee with misleading instructions that cause him to miss a critical deadline for seeking FMLA leave. Rager v. Dade Behring, Inc., supra, 210 F.3d 776, 778-79; Harcourt v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., 383 F.Supp.2d 944, 959-61 (S.D.Ohio 2005); Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc., supra, 255 F.Supp.2d at 443-44; 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b). However, Taylor was clearly not mislead by the form as he crossed out his wife’s name and inserted his own and thus misused a form that was meant for his wife. The appeals court did not consider the doctor’s letter explaining that the form had been faxed three times as explaining or justifying the delay.

Mr. Taylor continued with the interference argument claiming that FPU/Ameritech should have given him a chance to correct the deficiencies in his doctor’s letter which, in turn, had attempted to excuse his initial failure to comply with the 15/20 day submission deadline. Somehow Ameritech’s failure to give him that chance constituted interference with his FMLA rights. The Seventh Circuit felt that Amertech’s three chances were plenty: the employee has 15 days to submit the form; a five day grace period existed to the 15 day deadline; and the employee had a final chance to show extenuated circumstances on why he couldn’t make the previous two opportunities.

Mr. Taylor’s interpretation of the law would prevent employers from setting any real deadlines and require seemingly endless opportunities for employees to cure late submissions. The bottom line, therefore, would be that the concept of a ‘deadline’ under § 825.305(d) would have no meaningful significance and no actual consequences. This would, in effect, create an imbalance where the ‘legitimate interests of employers’ [would] no longer receive the protections that Congress presumably intended to provide when it enacted the FMLA.” Urban v. Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., 393 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir.2004). See also Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center, 503 F.3d 572, 579 (6th Cir.2007).

Mrs. Taylor had similar absentee issues at work. She missed several days of work because of back problems. Upon her return to work, she received a certification form for her doctor (who was a different doctor from the child’s physician) to complete. Mrs. Taylor waited 12 days after receipt of the form to submit it to her doctor who, in turn, needed another 9 days to get the completed form to FPU. Mrs. Taylor missed the deadline by a day. Ameritech gave her 15 days to set forth extenuating circumstances. The doctor explained that delays sometimes result as she is only in the office two days a week. The appeals court noted that Mrs. Taylor took a risk by waiting 12 days to submit a form with a 15 day deadline. She indicated that the twelfth day was her first day off work and her working hours corresponded with the clinic’s hours. She did not want to take time off work to submit the form.

The court of appeals felt that the reasonable thing to do in Mrs. Taylor’s shoes would have been to would have been to have “called the clinic to verify its hours, explained her inflexible work schedule, and made arrangements for getting the form to her doctor. By waiting as long as she did she made herself hostage to whatever delays might occur in the transmission of the completed and signed form
to FPU.”

The court admitted that Ameritech’s termination of her employment was harsh for missing the submission deadline by only one day but, in the same breath, noted that Mrs. Taylor’s situation was a case of the last straw: “Both Taylors were problem employees, and Ameritech was not required to exhibit more patience than the law and its own rules required.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

You Should Also Check Out This Post:

More Active Posts: