Regina D. Coates appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Upon de novo review, see Burciaga v. Ravago Americas, LLC, 791 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2015), we agree with the district court that there were no jury issues on Coates’s FMLA discrimination claim, see Hudson v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 787 F.3d 861, 866 (8th Cir. 2015) (discrimination claim arises when employer takes adverse action against employee for exercising rights to. which she is entitled under FMLA; where employer bases its adverse decision on honestly-held belief unrelated to FMLA, it is not discriminatory even if belief is mistaken); or on her FMLA entitlement claim, as she was granted such leave, see Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745, 753 (8th Cir. 2011) (for interference (also known as entitlement) claim, employers are prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying employee’s exercise or attempted exercise of any right contained in FMLA; while interference includes discouraging employee from using such leave, employee must also show that employer denied employee entitlements under FMLA). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.