In a June 14, 2024 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia refused to toss out Daniel Mook’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim against the City of Martinsville and Commonwealth’s Attorney G. Andrew Hall. Mook says he did everything right when he took leave to care for his seriously ill mother—only to be accused of faking her doctor’s form and then fired.
Background: A Son’s Duty Meets Suspicion
Daniel Mook worked as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney in Martinsville starting in April 2018. His mother, Shirley, suffered from severe osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. In November 2021, Mook submitted a properly completed FMLA certification form, signed “per Dr. Lisa Francis” by Shirley’s nurse after a doctor’s visit. A few days later, Martinsville’s HR department called the doctor’s office, concluded nobody there filled out or signed the form, and told Mook he was under investigation for forgery.
Rather than give him a chance to straighten things out, Commonwealth’s Attorney Hall told Mook that HR “directed him to fire” Mook for the questionable certification. Hall offered Mook the choice to resign immediately—but when Mook refused, Hall emailed a termination notice on November 18, 2021.
Procedural Posture: A Fight Over FMLA Rights
Mook sued on November 16, 2023, claiming the City and Hall unlawfully interfered with his FMLA rights by:
-
Questioning a form that met the FMLA’s strict requirements;
-
Investigating without giving Mook an opportunity to cure any defect; and
-
Firing him instead of allowing him to take the leave he was entitled to law.justia.com.
Both defendants moved to dismiss, arguing either the other was Mook’s actual “employer” or that their conduct was allowed under FMLA regulations.
Legal Framework: Interference vs. Authentication
Under the FMLA, employers cannot discourage or punish employees for seeking covered leave. Once an employee submits a “complete and sufficient certification,” the employer may not demand more information—only “clarification and authentication” of the provided form. If there’s a problem with the form itself, the employer must give the employee 7–10 days to correct it before denying leave.
The Court’s Decision: Denying Dismissal
Judge Thomas T. Cullen found Mook’s complaint met the basic requirements for a plausible FMLA interference claim. He ruled:
-
Employer Status: Mook alleged both the City and Hall acted in roles that qualify as “employers” under the FMLA.
-
Proper Certification: Mook’s form was complete and signed by an authorized medical office staffer.
-
Improper Investigation: Martinsville never gave Mook time to fix or explain the form before terminating him.
-
Plausible Pretext: By firing him instead of allowing the leave, the City likely discouraged him from exercising his rights.
Because these facts must be accepted as true at the dismissal stage, the court refused to throw out Mook’s lawsuit.
Takeaways for Employers and Employees
-
Employers: If you doubt an FMLA form, you can only “clarify or authenticate”—not flatly reject it. Always offer the employee a chance to correct any defects within the regulatory 7–10 day window.
-
Employees: Keep copies of all FMLA paperwork. If your employer questions a form, ask for—and use—the opportunity to cure alleged errors.
-
Both Sides: Good record‑keeping and clear communication are your best defenses when FMLA rights are on the line.
The Mook decision underscores that the FMLA’s protections are real—and that rushing to judgment (or to the mailroom chair) without following the rules can land you back in court.
Be Audit-Secure™!
