A recent federal appeals court decision has introduced a significant development for employers when it comes to how they interpret and respond to FMLA claims, particularly around medical certifications. Based on Davis v. Ill. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 137 F.4th 641 (7th Cir. 2025), “an employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave is not strictly bound by the precise parameters laid out in the medical certification.”
Let’s examine this case to understand the court’s reasoning and unpack what it means for employers moving forward.
The Case
In 2017, Dyamond Davis fell ill at her job at an assisted living facility and discovered she was pregnant. She subsequently had several absences due to morning sickness. After these initial absences, the employer gave her an FMLA packet that included their absence policies, her rights under the FMLA, and a medical certification form. The employee timely returned a completed medical certification to the employer. On the certification, the doctor noted that she had a high-risk pregnancy due to her lupus, and that she would be required to attend frequent prenatal appointments to monitor the pregnancy. It also outlined that she would need at least a six-week absence to recover from the pregnancy post-birth. Finally, the form asked, “Will the condition cause episodic flare-ups,” to which the doctor responded—unequivocally— “no.”
Naturally, Davis’s employer crafted a leave approval based on the exact parameters the doctor specified in the certification. Yet, when Davis again fell ill with morning sickness and called off using FMLA, her employer refused to designate it. Their reasoning? The certification explicitly noted that she would not need to use her FMLA for “flare-ups.” Davis exhausted all her accrued leave to cover her absences for morning sickness but was left with 30 minutes of unexcused time. The employer disciplined her, which eventually contributed to her termination. She sued, claiming FMLA interference.
The Ruling
Even though the doctor certified that Davis did not need leave for flare-ups, the court reasoned that the employer had more than enough information to know that the leave was FMLA-qualifying. Essentially, they should have known better.
First, the doctor confirmed that Davis was pregnant on the certification, and the employer was aware that she was previously absent due to morning sickness. Second, the FMLA regulations specifically note that absences for morning sickness are FMLA-qualifying. Third, the court emphasized that certifications are only a doctor’s estimates, and that not every intermittent absence needs to be exactly outlined in the certification for the time to be protected under the FMLA. For example, the occasional absence that exceeds frequency or duration is not necessarily an abuse of FMLA leave.
What Can We Learn from Davis?
There are a few lessons that we can take from this ruling.
First, if an employer sees an inconsistency or confusing response on a certification, the FMLA provides them with several avenues to address it depending on the situation—clarifications, authentications, second opinions, recertifications, etc. Here, the employer rushed straight to discipline, and ultimately paid the price in court. Second, the court’s logic is supported by the since-passed Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act. Under the PWFA, morning sickness is a “known limitation” and one for which documentation isn’t necessarily required if the employer, “already knows about the limitation and the adjustment or change at work due to the limitation.” Indeed, the EEOC guidance uses the example of an employee who has already taken time for morning sickness. Both the PWFA and the court in Davis are saying the same thing: given the circumstances, employers need to consider the total facts and circumstances available to them at the time of the request and not rigidly follow one particular form entry or another. If an employer has sufficient information to protect the time, they should do so. And employers should pay special attention to the application of the PWFA to a case like this. Had Davis’s leave occurred in 2025, she would have had an additional claim against her employer.
Davis is yet another example of how robotic, inflexible leave management can create homerun cases for employees.
Learn more about how AbsenceResources (formerly FMLASource) can help your team remain compliant with FMLA, the PWFA and more here.
