Maria Escriba was an employee of Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. When Escriba was fired in 2007 for failing to comply with the company's "three day no-show, no-call rule," Escriba filed suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Escriba's failure to comply with the company's no-show rule followed an already approved leave to take care of her sick father in Guatemala. The employer argued that although Escriba had a qualifying reason to take leave, she denied having this time off count as FMLA leave and instead pursued it as vacation time. The lower court concluded that the case at hand was a classic "he said, she said case." Both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district court denied Escriba's motion, concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Escriba unequivocally declined to take FMLA leave. What evidence did the district court rely on when ruling in favor of Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.? How do you think the appeals court ruled? Why? Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014).