must demonstrate that (1) he was an eligible employee under the FMLA; (2) defendant is an employer under the FMLA; (3) plaintiff was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) plaintiff gave notice to defendant of his intention to take leave; and (5) plaintiff was denied benefits to which he was entitled under the FMLA. Rice v. Wayne County, 2010 WL 4861556 at *2-3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125939 at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010). It is undisputed that plaintiff took leave three times, once for her son’s surgery and twice for a personal , 2010 WL 4366897 at *6, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114835 at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2010) (“Plaintiffs theory of interference by termination is merely a retaliation theory in disguise”); Di Giovanna v. Beth Israel Med. Center, 651 F.Supp.2d 193, 203 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiffs FMLA interference
holding that plaintiffs interference claim really is no more than an effort to dress his retaliation claim in barely different clothing holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding that interference and retaliation are two separate theories that can be advanced under the fmla and that termination is evidence of retaliation