discrimination claim and there has to be some discriminatory decision and that's the need for an accommodation with the motivating factors for that discriminatory decision supreme court to say that there is no free standing failure to accommodate claim that it is a disparate treatment claim and the case last clear the disparate treatment claims require proof of an adverse employment action how do you get around that but his crying opinion suggested that there could be a claim if for example you gave accommodations to christians but not to non christians that that could be discrimination it didn't suggest it was ok to have a stand alone claim different from that statute requires discrimination against an individual with respect to his compensation terms conditions or privileges of employment again linking it to some type of discrimination with respect to those elements of employment so why isn't what you're asking us to agree to doing away but in every case and how would it be a term or condition of employment to be able to exercise the religious belief why isn't that a separate element from the discrimination with respect to the religion submitted the case to the district court with the understanding that proof of an adverse employment action was an element of the claim failure to accommodate a religious observance or practice prevents stand of it all from practicing his religion which is to otherwise discriminate in the terms conditions and privileges of employment so by having to follow the work rule despite a religious conflict that employee is being subject to work conditions that other employees are not and this is just criminalization because of a religious practice or observance and a title seven violation and less the religious practices are given special favor treatment under the statue i also want to point out that this interpretation fits comfortably within the seven circuit statement of a prime official case because the rd element in have also point out that this court has stated an idea i the title seven does not contemplate i have to employees to sacrifice their jobs to observe their religious practices title seven is and to ensure that employees would not have to sacrifice their jobs to observe their religious practices so what's unusual about this interpretation is it involves employees who are working despite being denied an accommodation and those cases factually are few and far between so it's unusual to have loyalty who  to suffer a compromise of his religious beliefs because he can't afford to quit his job so those that class of employees is protected by the statute the same as a someone who decides not that he can't continue working if he does not have sufficient for a great or have to work on saturdays or can't shave his beard and is then fired or punish the employee that is suffering impact but it it just has made the analysis of failure to accommodate a class or carefully rooted within the language of those terms conditions of employment otherwise discriminate language  seven i was three a one it did not change the fact that you can still bring a failure to accommodate claim under this disparate treatment theory that's clearly  practice because of the unique ways that this combination provision is written as has worked into the definition of religion itself there is clearly environment clean and his failure to accommodate claims the appeal regarding each of these claims should be rejected because neither has been properly raised in this court and even if properly before the court both fail we're on a ledge just from this criminal tory treatment based upon three different protected characteristics religion national origin and race based upon multiple statutes and multiple different theories most recently reiterated by this court in florida versus marion county sheriff's office and dating back to the supreme court's two thousand and two decision and morgan a district court may properly separate from each other claims based on specific adverse employment action denial of a reasonable accommodation and hostile work environment just a legal theories denote independent unlawful employment practices that may be addressed separately as we point out in our brief m environment claim as we set forth in detail in our brief and that's the u s c and because do not dispute there was no evidence to support any of these allegations at the district court opinion and the record reveal ro allegations of district treatment were either untimely lacked any evidentiary basis that he was treated differently than anyone else or lacked evidence that he was treated differently based upon a protected characteristic and are different and theories are different but we have said very clearly that you have to look at all of the evidence and here are the district court reserved its review of the disparate treatment evidence  mean st of all our take is that the court said in our tease that you have to look at the best a dense as a whole related to the specific type of claim and in that case for instance it was looking at all of the evidence of disparate treatment together as a whole and the court in fact in this case did do that in three hundred and fifty dollars doesn't talk about looking at all of the evidence of just great treatment and incorporating it into a hostile environment claim but the that the issue really here in this case even if that was correct if it amounts to harmless error because here as we point out and i argue in detail in our brief there was no evidence to support that any of these actions that were alleged were taken based upon a particular protected characteristic or in this case he is now limited to based upon his religion and not only is that  evidence was improper and fundamentally this is a case of summary judgment what they need to show is a genuinely disputed issue of material fact and they have not done that i mean there are claims in this case that together in our harmless error section there's no showing that that the result would have been any different a court has to look at an allegation of disparate treatment to even if it is obliged to obligate is obliged to incorporate it it has to look at whether or not the disparate treatment actually occurred and if there's no evidence that there was any wrongful treatment based upon a protected characteristic the actually isn't anything to incorporate that's going to change the result on a hostile work environment analysis and for that reason fundamentally as well the district court should be affirmed if the courts have no other precedent leaves room to disagree on the required elements of rule religious failure to accommodate climb and among the competing alternatives if we take them at their word we're on shows a theory that is amply supported by less or something else regarded to terms and conditions of employment as we e s p in particular puppets to choose how to prosecute his claim the district court ruled upon the argument or on correct propounded found it lacked any record support and granted summary judgment on that basis and to be clear the end make i have not an appeal claims that the court's analysis on this factual issue was contrary to the record that alone available to him but that he chose not to pursue and the fact that a meek i believe that there is a more compelling argument than the one run chose is not a basis for reversal for the fundamental reason that it does not establish or by the reversing judgement on an argument that is contrary to the one presented by the party represented by counsel in the district court nor is the university of chicago's reply brief futility argument well founded given the arguments that they made in their opening briefs which set out how one could have made the arguments but one does not need to show an adverse employment action and that's the e e o c stated moments ago their argument fits quote comfortably within seven circuits authority so if you fill it he is not a well taken argument and even if the if the court were going to consider the argument it's not well founded based upon the clear articulation in abercrombie that an adverse action is required in all  that record did not support a finding that moron's claim was supported by the evidence he has not shown a conflict with the workplace replier meant instead he alleged routine denials of that absolutely left record support he has not identify anybody who told him not to take breaks he has admitted he wasn't disciplined for failing to take credit and  judgment be a for thank you very much as call