in her employment action alleging discrimination, retaliation, and termination of health care benefits in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s conclu sions of law, and review its findings of fact for clear error. Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 479 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. The district court did not clearly err by finding that Csanyi failed to prove that her job transfer was motivated by her age, race, or national origin because there was evidence that the transfer was based on complaints about Csanyi’s behavior at work and the need for stronger supervision. See Lam v. Univ. of Hawai’i, 40 F.3d 1551, 1565-66 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly dismissed
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous holding that when court applies the clearly erroneous standard court may not reverse boards finding of fact if after court reviews the record in its entirety the finding is supported by a plausible basis holding that if a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative record then the finding is supported by substantial evidence