The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. The jurisdiction of the court existed for the reasons given by the order of April 7, 2009, 2009 WL 961247. The plaintiffs petition appears to predicate the alleged wrongful termination on a violation of the plaintiffs entitlement to medical leave of absence. The claim under the federal act was confirmed by plaintiffs counsel. Subsequently, plaintiff dismissed that claim, but jurisdiction was determined on the date of removal.

2. As an at-will employee, plaintiff has no claim for her termination. Whether or not she was allowed medical leave is immaterial, because that would not change the defendant’s right to terminate her employment. Again, the district court by its order of April 9, 2009, 2009 WL 981708, correctly ruled.

AFFIRMED.