James A. Burkett v. Beaulieu of America, Inc., No. 05-15126 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-15126 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 22, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00139-CV-RLV-4 JAMES A. BURKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEAULIEU OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, BEAULIEU GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (February 22, 2006) Before MARCUS, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James A. Burkett appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to Beaulieu Group, LLC, on Burkett s claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the FMLA ), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Burkett exercised his right to FMLA leave for twelve weeks in 2003. As authorized by 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c), Beaulieu required each employee taking advantage of FMLA leave to provide Beaulieu with a proper fitness-for-duty certificate as a condition precedent to returning to work. The district court held that Burkett did not timely provide this certificate to Beaulieu, and that Beaulieu was therefore justified in terminating Burkett after his leave period expired. We agree with the district court that Burkett failed to provide Beaulieu with the required certificate until well after the expiration of his FMLA leave period. Burkett contends that his doctor s August 18, 2003 certification of his incapacity to work from June 13, 2003 to September 5, 2003 served as the required certification. However, the certification contemplated by 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c) must be provided at the time the employee seeks reinstatement at the end of FMLA leave taken for the employee's serious health condition. Clearly, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that a doctor makes an independent determination near the end of the leave period that the employee is no longer incapacitated and can return to work. A 2 doctor s good-faith prediction made weeks before the employee s return date that the employee will then no longer be incapacitated does not serve this purpose. It is undisputed in this case that Beaulieu made Burkett aware even after the doctor s August 18 certification that he would need to provide a separate fitness-forduty certificate before returning to work. Burkett did not provide Beaulieu with the required certificate until October 6, 2003. The FMLA regulations grant an employer discretion to terminate an employee who fails to comply with a broadly applicable policy requiring a fitness-for-duty certificate prior to returning to work. 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c). Beaulieu s policy was to not allow employees to return to work without providing a fitness-for-duty certificate, and Burkett failed to comply with this policy. As a result, Beaulieu terminated him pursuant to its policy and 29 C.F.R. §825.311(c). Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Beaulieu on Burkett s FMLA claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court awarding summary judgment to Beaulieu. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
