## Facts

- Kimberly Miller worked for AT&T as an account representative in Charleston, West Virginia from 1990 until her termination on March 20, 1997 under AT&T’s “excessive absences” policy.
- In late December 1996, Miller became ill at work and was advised by an AT&T emergency medical technician to see a doctor.
- Miller missed work on December 27 and, on December 28, saw Dr. Troy Sommerville with high fever and severe dehydration; he diagnosed influenza A, administered IV fluids, ordered blood tests, and scheduled follow-up care.
- Dr. Sommerville issued a work-excuse covering December 28–January 1 and maintained work restrictions after a December 30 follow-up visit due to persistently abnormal blood counts.
- Miller requested FMLA leave for December 27–January 1; AT&T denied the request, treating the flu as non-qualifying and concluding she lacked qualifying “continuing treatment” under Department of Labor regulations.
- AT&T counted the absences as chargeable and later terminated Miller; Miller alleged the denial and termination interfered with her FMLA rights.
- In district court, Miller obtained partial summary judgment on liability; after stipulated submissions on remedies, the court awarded back pay, limited front pay, and liquidated damages, and rejected AT&T’s arguments based on after-acquired evidence and mitigation.
- AT&T appealed the liability and damages rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether Miller’s influenza episode constituted a “serious health condition” entitling her to FMLA leave.
2. Whether the Department of Labor’s regulation defining “continuing treatment by a health care provider” was valid.
3. Whether Miller’s alleged noncompliance with AT&T’s internal leave procedures justified denial of FMLA leave.
4. Whether damages (including back pay) should have been reduced based on after-acquired evidence or failure to mitigate, and whether fee-related relief should be revisited.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held Miller’s illness satisfied the regulatory definition of a “serious health condition,” based on more than three consecutive days of incapacity plus “continuing treatment” by a health-care provider.
- The court upheld the Department of Labor’s “continuing treatment” regulation as a reasonable interpretation of the FMLA under Chevron principles.
- The court rejected AT&T’s procedural defenses, concluding Miller supplied medical certification and AT&T did not use the statutory second-opinion mechanism to challenge it.
- The court found no reversible error in the damages awards and declined to disturb the attorneys’ fees award.

## Legal Principles

- A condition is evaluated under the FMLA by whether it causes inability to perform job functions and involves inpatient care or “continuing treatment,” not by categorical labels such as “routine” illnesses.
- Under the Department of Labor regulation, a “serious health condition” may be shown by incapacity of more than three consecutive days plus continuing treatment satisfied by multiple provider visits or a provider-supervised regimen initiated by at least one visit.
- When statutory language is ambiguous and Congress delegates regulatory authority, courts generally defer to reasonable agency regulations implementing the statute.
- An employee may satisfy FMLA certification obligations by providing medical certification containing appropriate medical facts; if an employer doubts the certification, the statute provides a second-opinion process the employer must invoke rather than unilaterally rejecting coverage.
- Back-pay limitations based on after-acquired evidence require proof the employer would have terminated the employee on the newly discovered ground at a specific earlier time; mitigation reductions require proof the employee lacked reasonable diligence and that substantially equivalent work was available.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that influenza can qualify as an FMLA “serious health condition” when incapacity and provider-directed treatment meet regulatory criteria, upheld the Labor Department’s continuing-treatment regulation, and affirmed liability and remedies where the employer denied leave without using the statutory second-opinion process and failed to justify reductions in damages.


Miller v. AT&T Corp., 250 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2001)