An employee challenged her termination based on a written attendance policy enforced largely though progressive discipline action. It was suggested that at least one of the absences was for an FMLA protected absence, even though no FMLA Leave had been requested, so the employee was arguing that there was an interference with her right to exercise FMLA. The policy at hand involved assigning one point to an employee who missed a full day of work due to unscheduled absences or undocumented illnesses and assigning a half-point for an illness documented by a doctor’s note or an unscheduled “lateness” or an unscheduled “early quit”. Employees received written warnings depending on the frequency and infraction, and basically were subject to termination, absent application of a leniency provision, if they accumulated more than five points during any 6 month period. In analyzing this case, the Court granted summary judgment to the employer, recognizing that it had the right to enforce its policy and did so consistently, which made it clear that they would have made the same decision notwithstanding exercise of the employee’s FMLA rights. This means that there was no interference found. Estrada v. Cyprus Semi-Conductor (MN), Inc. (D.C. Minn. 2010)