that she fit the definition of an “eligible employee.” See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2004). Second, the worker must establish that she worked for an employer covered by the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) (2004); 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1). Third, the worker has to show that she qualified for FMLA benefits for one of four statutory reasons. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2004). Fourth, the worker has to prove that she gave her employer appropriate notice. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(e) (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.302. See also 29 C.F.R. 825.303 (notice requirements for unforeseeable leave). Finally, the worker has to establish that the employer denied her benefits to which the FMLA entitled her. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2004). See also Cavin v. Honda of America Mfg. Inc., 346 F.3d 713, 716 (6th Cir.2003)(<HOLDING>). B. “Eligible employee” and employer. A worker
recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant recognizing these five factors holding that nonmonetary claims are not subject to these requirements holding that ajbsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face holding that claims under  1983 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against persons and a state is not considered a person under these statutes