law that it would have fired Janczak regardless of his FMLA leave on the basis of materials provided by TWI showing that it was contemplating Janczak’s position prior to his leave. Janczak, 2014 WL 2197794, at *10. We agree that TWI provided evidence suggesting that it was contemplating eliminating the GM position before Janczak was placed on leave. But such evidence does not constitute sufficient proof to permit summary judgment. Our precedent requires an employer seeking summary judgment on an interference claim to show that termination would certainly have occurred regardless of leave. See DeFreitas, 577 F.3d at 1160 (considering whether the employee “would have been fired anyway, regardless of leave”); accord Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 548 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In concluding that evidence of contemplated
holding that it may not holding that an employer may deny restoration when it can show that it would have discharged the employee in any event regardless of the leave holding that an atwill employee can be discharged for any reason or no reason unless employee is discharged for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project holding that an employee gives his employer sufficient notice that he is requesting leave for an fmlaqualifying condition when he gives the employer enough information for the employer to reasonably conclude that an event described in 29 usc  2612a1 has occurred