[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF
________________________
APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-15126 FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar 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-for-
duty 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