A signature mismatch can make HR suspicious. It can also have an explanation worth hearing before someone gets fired.

TL;DR: An employer fired an employee for allegedly falsifying FMLA paperwork after checking with two doctors who had not signed it. But it never followed a lead to the doctor who allegedly had. A federal court denied summary judgment on her retaliation claim, finding questions about the employer’s asserted good-faith belief.

📄 Read the court’s decision

The names changed. The signature didn’t.

How did an effort to finish FMLA paperwork become a firing for dishonesty? An employee seeking leave to care for her son with cancer supplied information that raised suspicions, and her employer’s investigation left enough unanswered questions for her retaliation claim to survive summary judgment in a Texas federal court.

The employer approved her leave and requested medical certification. When she returned the form, the healthcare provider’s contact information was incomplete. HR asked her to have the physician supply it.

According to the employee, the dermatologist who signed the form was on maternity leave and difficult to reach. After speaking with a patient advocate at the cancer center, the employee added the names and contact information of two doctors she expected to treat her son.

That created a mismatch. The employer thought the signature did not match either doctor’s name, so HR contacted the patient advocate to ask whether the form was legitimate.

The advocate confirmed that neither cancer-center doctor had signed it. Her final email also identified the referring dermatologist and supplied that doctor’s phone number.

The employer fired the employee that day for falsifying FMLA documents without contacting the dermatologist or asking the employee about the discrepancy. In response to the termination email, the employee explained that the dermatologist had signed the form and the other doctors would treat her son.

The unanswered question weakened the employer’s defense

Does taking FMLA leave prevent an employer from firing someone for suspected misconduct? No. The FMLA protects employees from being punished for requesting or taking protected leave, but it does not give them a free pass for falsifying paperwork.

Under the rule the court applied, an employer can defend against an FMLA retaliation claim by showing that it genuinely believed the employee committed misconduct and fired her for that reason. The employer can be mistaken about what happened and still have acted lawfully. Here, that made the key question whether the company genuinely believed she had falsified the certification when it fired her.

The employer had done some checking. It also argued that a deficient investigation does not prove retaliation. But the court found factual questions about both the reasonableness of the original suspicion and whether the employer could claim good faith after failing to follow the advocate’s final lead.

The termination’s timing added to those questions. Timing alone would not establish pretext, but the employee also challenged the credibility of the employer’s explanation. The court called the question close and allowed the claim to proceed without deciding that retaliation occurred.

Before a paperwork discrepancy becomes a dishonesty charge, HR can test whether the information already available supports that leap. Three points deserve attention.

A paperwork discrepancy deserves a complete investigation

The missing contact information set this dispute in motion; adding different doctors’ names intensified it. But confirming that those doctors had not signed the form still left the central question unanswered: Who had? When a verification response identifies another possible signer, follow that lead and ask the employee to explain the discrepancy before treating it as fraud.

Decide whether this is the hill you want to die on

Employers can require FMLA certification and investigate suspected fraud. But consider what you will have to explain if your conclusion is wrong. Here, a mother sought leave to care for her son with cancer, and HR had the name and phone number of the doctor who might explain the paperwork. Before turning that discrepancy into a firing, ask whether the evidence is strong enough to defend that decision to a jury.

An honest-belief defense depends on the information available when HR acts

The employer’s defense focused on what it believed when it fired the employee. Review both the information supporting suspicion and any available explanation that could undermine it before approving termination.

The employer wanted answers about an FMLA form. Now a jury may want answers about why it actually fired a mother caring for her son with cancer.