the FMLA does not entitle the employee to any rights, benefits, or positions he would not have been entitled to had he not taken leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(3)(B). The act simply guarantees that an employee’s taking of leave will not result in loss of job security or other adverse employment actions. The FMLA states that it is “unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right provided.” 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit has held that adverse employment actions taken against employees for exercising rights under FMLA should not be construed as retaliation or discrimination, but rather as interference with rights guaranteed by the statute. See Bachelder v. America West Airlines, 259 F.3d 1112, 1124 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Conoshenti v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.,
holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that to prevail on a claim under  2615a1 a plaintiff need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her taking of fmlaprotected leave constituted a negative factor in the decision to terminate her holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence 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 the appellant needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her husbands death fell within the terms of the insurance policy