In action alleging that defendant-employer interfered with plaintiff-employee’s FMLA rights by denying him FMLA leave after January 1, 2008, by failing to provide him with timely notice that his FMLA leave had been exhausted, and by requiring him to pay for his medical premiums after his FMLA leave had been exhausted, record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s verdict in favor of defendant, as well as Dist. Ct.’s grant of plaintiff’s Rule 50 motion for judgment n.o.v. with respect to medical premiums that plaintiff was required to pay for month of January 2008. While defendant objected to Dist. Ct.’s grant of instant Rule 50 motion, defendant failed to challenge Dist. Ct.’s ruling that plaintiff was entitled to FMLA leave, and defendant otherwise conceded that plaintiff’s FMLA leave lasted until January 31, 2008. Thus defendant should not have garnished plaintiff’s wages to recover medical premiums for month of January of 2008. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that, in spite of its concession, it was entitled to contest various specific requests for FMLA leave on grounds that plaintiff’s wife was not experiencing qualified medical condition at time of said requests.