Muriekes

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Cheryl Muriekes (“Muriekes”) appeals from the judgment of the district court, which dismissed her action under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2645 , after granting defendant Boeing Company’s (“Boeing”) motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Order of February 25, 2003 (“Order”). We add only the following to the careful and well-reasoned decision of the district court.

Muriekes’ complaint alleged that Boeing had “interfered” with her rights under the FMLA. See 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1) (“It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this subchapter.”). As the district court’s Order demonstrates, however, Boeing complied with every requirement placed on an employer under these circumstances. Boeing not only sent Muriekes the 15-day notice required by 29 C.F.R. § 825.305 (b), it went beyond its FMLA obligation and also sent her a follow-up notice. Although Muriekes denies receiving this second notice, this was unknown to Boeing.…