after his FMLA leave expired, and he therefore had no right to reinstatement. (See Doc. 18, pp. 7-8 of 16.) Plaintiff alleges that he was given express permission to extend his leave beyond the twelve weeks allotted by the FMLA, and he was entitled to reinstatement when he attempted to return to work at the end of the extension. (See Doc. 19, pp. 11-12 of 17.) The majority of courts that have reviewed extensions of FMLA leave beyond twelve weeks have interpreted the twelve-week leave period strictly and found that employees are not entitled to the protections of the FMLA after the statutory leave has expired, even where the employee has received permission to extend their leave from the employer. See, e.g., Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 148 (3d Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>); Hofferica v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., 817
holding that employee who exceeded fmla leave was subject to immediate discharge on the very first workday that he was both absent from work and no longer protected by the fmla holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave holding that a plaintiff who was unable to return to work before his fmla leave expired did not allege any denial of an fmla right but noting that ragsdale left open the possibility that employees could recover for notice violations on a casebycase basis if there was actual harm resulting from the violations holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference holding that both the cfra and the fmla require the employee to provide notice to the employer of the employees intent to take leave