27.  During the relevant time period, the Defendant was an “employer” as defined  in 29 U.S.C. §2611(4).   28.  Plaintiff was an “eligible employee,” as defined in 29 U.S.C. §2611(2), because  she had worked in excess of 1,250 hours during the twelve-month period preceding  her June 2020 leave request.   29.  Plaintiff’s medical condition and continuing treatment from early Spring 2020  through June 2020 constituted a “serious health condition” as defined in 29 U.S.C.  §2611(11).   30.  Immediately preceding her June 2020 leave, the Plaintiff was entitled to at  least four (4) weeks of FMLA leave pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1)(D).   32.  Plaintiff clearly expressed her desire to use her PTO benefits concurrently with  her extended FMLA leave.   33.  Both Defendant’s policy of not allowing PTO to be used in conjunction with  medical leave, and Defendant’s specific denial of Plaintiff’s request to use her PTO  benefits in conjunction with her extended FMLA leave, are violations of the Family  & Medical Leave Act.   35.  Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs four (4) through seventeen (17).   36.  Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment immediately following her  request for FMLA leave constitutes a violation of 29 U.S.C. §2614(a)(1) (job  restoration rights), and impermissible retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C.  §2615(a)(2). Plaintiff is entitled to recover her lost wages, liquidated damages in an  equal amount, her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and to be reinstated to the  same or equivalent position. 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A), 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(3) and 29  C.F.R. §825.400(c).  Prayer for Relief   Interference with Plaintiff’s Rights under the   FMLA – Refusal to Allow Plaintiff to use Paid Time Off   Retaliation Claim under the FMLA – Defendant’s   Termination of Plaintiff Constitutes Unlawful Retaliation  