not terminated in April, despite her performance or this meeting. 53 . See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). 54 . Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955, 960 (10th Cir.2002). 55 . Id. 56 . Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164, 1180 (10th Cir.2006). 57 . See Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll., 152 F.3d 1253, 1262 (10th Cir.1998). 58 . See id. 59 . 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b). 60 . Mardis v. Cent. Nat'l Bank & Trust of Enid, 173 F.3d 864, 1999 WL 218903, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 15, 1999). 61 . See, e.g., id. at *2 (finding interference when an employer informed an employee that she would be irrevocably deprived of all accrued sick leave and annual leave as a condition of taking FMLA leave); Mondaine v. Am. Drug Stores, Inc., 408 F.Supp.2d 1169, 1203 (D.Kan.2006) (<HOLDING>); Goodwin-Haulmark v. Menninger Clinic, Inc.,
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 an employers motives are irrelevant to a fmla interference claim holding that  825220c is a reasonable interpretation of the statutes prohibition on interference with and restraint of employees rights under the fmla  2615a1  and that the labor departments conclusion that employer use of the taking of fmla leave as a negative factor in employment actions  violates  the act is  a reasonable one holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference