An employer who suspects an employee has falsified a medical certification for family leave can verify the document — but in California, the verification path narrows considerably depending on which law governs the leave.

That is the guidance from Ashley Huynh, an employment law expert at the California Chamber of Commerce, who answered the question in a recent CalChamber HR Watchdog column: an employee taking leave under both the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act provided a certification that "looks falsified." The employer's options differ under each statute, and when the two laws run together, the employer must apply the more protective one — which, in this scenario, means CFRA controls.

For people-process leaders, the issue touches leave administration, compliance risk and how HR structures its certification review workflow.

What FMLA permits

Under FMLA, employers may both authenticate and clarify a medical certification. Authentication means sending the healthcare provider a copy of the certification and asking the provider to verify that the information on the form was completed or authorized by that provider. The employer may not request additional medical information as part of that check.

Clarification is also allowed, but it must meet specific requirements under 29 Code of Federal Regulations Section 825.307.

Only certain roles may contact the employee's healthcare provider: a healthcare provider, an HR professional, a leave administrator or a management official. The employee's direct supervisor is excluded from that list.

Second and third opinions under FMLA

When the employer has reason to doubt the validity of a certification, it may require the employee to obtain a second opinion from another healthcare provider — at the employer's designation and expense, including reasonable out-of-pocket travel costs. The employer cannot regularly contract with or employ the provider it selects, per 29 CFR Section 825.307(b).

If the two providers' opinions differ, the employer may require a third opinion, also at its expense. The employer and employee must jointly select the third provider. That provider's opinion is final and binding.

Where CFRA is stricter

CFRA gives California employers less room to maneuver. Under Cal. Code Regulations, Title 2, Section 11091, an employer may contact the healthcare provider only to authenticate the certification — not to clarify it.

CFRA does allow second and third opinions, mirroring the FMLA process, but with two key differences. First, the standard is higher: the employer needs a good faith, objective reason to doubt the certification's validity. Second, second and third opinions are available only for the employee's own serious health condition — not for leave taken to care for a family member's health condition.

The concurrency rule

When an employee takes leave under both FMLA and CFRA simultaneously, the employer must apply the more protective law, Huynh writes. In this case, that means CFRA's tighter limits on provider contact and opinion requests govern the process, even though FMLA would permit more.

The practical takeaway for HR teams in California: build certification-review procedures around the CFRA restrictions as the default, document the objective basis for any doubt before triggering a second opinion, and route all provider contact through the roles FMLA permits — never the direct supervisor.

Employers facing questionable certifications should expect the authentication and opinion process to remain the legally sanctioned route, as opposed to informal pressure on employees, and should track future regulatory updates from the California Chamber of Commerce and federal regulators for any changes to these standards.