had already been made” before the employee took FMLA leave. Cf. 676 F.3d at 959. Even though TWI provided evidence that might persuade a jury to conclude that Janczak’s leave ultimately played no role in his termination, the grant of summary judgment prematurely took that determination from the jury. See Brown, 700 F.3d at 1227 (observing that “sum-' mary judgment for the employer is warranted only when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the grounds for termination,” and that “the question ... is not whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of [the employer], but rather whether the evidence is so one-sided that submission to a jury is not required”); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., 186
holding that where the new york times clear and convincing evidence requirement applies the summary judgment inquiry will be whether the evidence presented is such that a jury applying that evidentiary standard could reasonably find for either plaintiff or defendant holding that summary judgment is unwarranted if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party holding that in deciding whether to grant summary judgment the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fairminded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence