On January 8, 2010, Judge Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued her decision granting summary judgment for the Plaintiff, and denying Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, in the matter of Matthew Jackson v. Jernberg Industries, Inc., No. 08-cv-3339. The Plaintiff had worked for Jernberg for four years, when due to a workplace injury he applied for and was granted intermittent FMLA leave for his periodic inability to work due to his ongoing medical condition. The Company, however, had a policy in place which required the Plaintiff to provide written doctor's notes each and every time he used intermittent FMLA leave. The Plaintiff was eventually terminated from the Company for failing to provide written notes for each and every instance of his leave. After the close of discovery in July 2009, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, largely agreeing as to the issues of fact but disagreeing as to the legal conclusions to be drawn from those facts. At issue was whether the Company's doctor's note policy discouraged affected employees from taking FMLA leave and thus unlawfully interfered with their right to leave under the FMLA. In a 19-page decision, the Court sided with the Plaintiff on the issue of law, and held that the doctor's note policy did violate the FMLA. Specifically, the Court held that the FMLA and its regulations show the intent to limit medical verification of FMLA-qualifying conditions to certification and recertification as delineated therein, and do not allow an employer to seek written notes each time an employee uses approved intermittent FMLA leave. Moreover, the Court acknowledged the practical burdens that the Plaintiff faced upon being asked to provide written documentation as required under the policy. Because the Plaintiff's ability to comply with the doctor's note policy hinged in large part upon his medical provider's ability and willingness to provide written notes up to multiple times in one week, the Court found that the Company's policy unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff's FMLA rights.