business case is about mr green's futile efforts to return to his job at big mark while he recuperated from cancer surgery mr green's efforts were futile because big mark maintained a policy that prevented d that it had to do with the nature of the job that mr green not that it was a blanket policy there were big references to an individual i think who had a broken foot and they were allowed to put responsibility well it seemed to be in terms of the hours that one worked there seemed to be a blanket rule no one they could not cite a single example of any individual who was ever permitted to return to work where manager who testified on the political the during the years that mr green worked there was a policy in effect that you could not return to work with any restrictions no conditions no qualifications that was his testimony repeated it twice the district court acknowledged that testimony but protests and purposes ignored gave it no weight whatsoever and rather credited but either i would consider to be very one hundred percent healed rule is a per se violation of the because it dispenses totally with the purpose that does that matter if it was permissible for the company to say full time work was an essential function of the job they were it's if it's permissible for the company say listen it's an essential function the job you work forty hours that's just what we're doing when it comes to you if they can do that is this other policy matter i think it does matter i think it does not dispense even if they had such a room full well job i've contemplated to be full time presumably otherwise a good most part time job there are categories of employees but i believe there's no rule certainly in the statute contemplate during the regulations or even in the case law that says full time employees are exempt from the provisions of the a d f it's judged in each individual case whether the requested accommodation is reasonable  h and this case is right with questions of fact with respect to whether or not mr was setting aside one hundred percent one person actually said you could do this one operations manager doesn't have to work any days because for a period of time while mr green was out there were times days perhaps even weeks were no supervisor was in the in the warehouse so it's  rintuitive to argue on the one hand he needs to be there it's an essential function and we're suffering to an undue hardship i accommodated him you're making the point that when they flew people and they weren't flying people  accommodation he asked for a period of time to recuperate or build up the strength by coming for a time to work the social security administration that he just wanted part time that he was recovering and that therefore they were ordered like awarded the disability the social security application was well after the fact that was after he had already been terminated you're talking about february now  we're talking about the first one this one is in february that's what we're talking about now right in march ok and then again in june ok so and the social security claim didn't happen till after this i guess after he was actually  accommodated would even receive more money that's an interesting question obliquely there's some allusion to the fact well why should we have to pay somebody who's not doing full time work well the answer probably is just don't if you engage in an interactive process with mr breen which never happened in which they offered him the opportunity of ok if you're going to come back and work four hours a day or only eight hours a day for a period of time we're going to adjust your your pay accordingly that never happened mr green was never offered that job what was the weather his damages for that failure to accommodate in february i would say it is absolutely an issue of fact because we don't know ultimately the extent to which his failure to be accommodated contributed to his inability ultimately to work again the doctor was trying to get him back to work as early as february again in march again in june and all along they said no no no and ultimately as we know he collapsed and he had some difficulties there after and ultimately to the point where the doctors were diagnosing him with p t s d so whether or not that was a result of the inability refusal of the company to accommodate him or some other reason is as a matter of fact there was nothing thing any claim on his having to work twenty four hours no no no we're not saying because he broke that day that there was an item of that there was some retaliation but that's not the central argument the central argument is this man was attempting for this period of time to return to work he wasn't asking for permanent restrictions he wasn't in fact he was giving them a definite schedule for a limited period of time there's absolutely no evidence on the record that that would impose a hardship on the company and how did they fail to accommodate him in march once again it was they did accommodate him for one week i concede that but that accommodation was i would say not any material deviation from their hundred percent rule they imposed on him a one week deal said you have to be back to work by march thirtieth he wanted his doctor wanted to have more flexible hours they said well we need to know how many how many so he mr green went to his doctors and i hugged i got to get back to work so a day five days a week ok when did he ask for that that was in march in eight i'd like to know i think you do identify a specific request in the record and then a specific denial of that request well what happened was he he asked for it the doctor wrote a letter in march they came back to well you don't have a time period for this for this period he even went to his doctor and said look they told me i have to be back the only extended to march thirtieth i would need to go back i want to go back to work so the doctor agreed and said ok he can return with no restrictions so mr green returned he worked then from march thirtieth i believe until may second rate that i don't hear a request that was denied now i'm saying they didn't know i'm saying in march they did they'd exceeded to his to his request for that limited period but it was the company who established the period in which he would have to be back that was not discussed in any interactive process he said here my doctor says it hours a day five days a week with no time period they said well how long we need you back by in february there was no conversation at all mr greene submitted a request for four hours a day five days a week for i think up to thirty days that information was was communicated to the company the this court fairly claim fails for two related reasons first mr greene failed to satisfy his burden of showing that is only proposed accommodation was a reasonable one he presented no evidence he could perform his operations manager's job while working less than half a regular schedule instead of evidence you present the argument that it's enough that he could do all parts of the job but only for four hours a day but that argument makes little sense by mr green's logic to be equally reasonable to come back for declaration says that when he was hired he was told it would be eight or nine hours a day there is direct evidence testimony in the record that says four hours a day is certainly not enough to perform the essential functions of the job i think your honor what you may be referring to is some testimony that said that there was no particular hour requirement but that's in the context your honor of saying there's no particular hour requirement because he has to work as long as it takes to get the job done and the evidence was overwhelming that what it takes to get the job done was ten to twelve hours a day and what about what would happen in his absence well in his absence in this case often a relief managers had to be flown in which by the way is not something the company's obligated to do since the law is quite clear that you don't have to employ to pick up the slack but little ploys did pick up the slack because you're on this case despite the plainest characterization of it the most distinguishing facts in this case are that big mark bend over backwards and that they were there were people there forty hours a week but there's no evidence actually that there were gaps in time even if there were gaps in time that those who make four hours a day this part time schedule for thirty days reasonable for example there's no evidence but there were other part time managers there was no evidence that anybody else had been given this kind of schedule there is no evidence that anybody else had the sort of work hardening program that you seem to think he's entitled to and his argument about why he wasn't  there's an interactive process is not required actually under the law unless there's been a proposed reasonable accommodation there's no trigger of any obligation but in this case great work actually did propose another accommodation  him another accommodation so in february not only was the accommodation he proposed he's not shown that it was reasonable but he was given another accommodation that was reasonable ok so you're saying that when ever certainly took a strong position that a full time job is is a full time job now there may be in you it would really depend on what the employers are and the particular position that the accommodation it was a temporary accommodation in the sense that you wanted to work part time for thirty days yes it was a temporary accommodation i will i think that this court has addressed a specific situation in the lobby case and  dressed the specific argument that plane of seems to be making which is that somehow the big mark had some obligation to create a temporary part time job to help mr green in his recovery but that misunderstands the it misunderstands the law in this circuit the law requires employers to accommodate a disability by making reasonable changes so that the employee and work in his disabled condition employers are obligated to a com disability are not obligated to provide treatment for them they're not rehab centers and thing in the a t l requires me to provide much less create part time jobs where there aren't any where answer the question they asked you i think you're answering it you're saying that when a job requires eight hours there is no duty to accommodate for a lesser time even if it's for short duration there's just no duty to accommodate by changing the hours there is there is no blanket duty that's correct it would depend on the circumstances it would it might depend on what the employer has done in other situations are going to stand here and say that if a person needs one day off that  might be that might be reasonable but that's not this case this case there's no evidence that the plaintiff could do the essential functions of his job in the four hours that he said he had to do it in there is no evidence that he proposed a reasonable accommodation or that there was one of vailable to him other than leave given his medical restrictions is there anything in the record of what he says about what he could do in those four hours and also some work at home well his argument appears to be that i could do everything i could own but i could only do it for four hours i don't recall anything about working at home but but to be a supervisor in a ford motors is stands for anything it's that you have to be at the job for most jobs you can't just work at home especially if you interact with other people who do juries say all right let's look at this he's been off certain period of time and they have managed by having somebody come in and spend at the man of hours a week he is proposing that for come in do this with spending twenty five hours a week doing it or twenty hours a week doing it he proposed to do basically the same thing for a month is that a reasonable accommodation well actually the last pretty clear that you can't it's not an obligation to have other people come and do your job not listening to me i think i am because you're saying that he did have other they did have other people climb saying something else i'm not saying that they would have to supplement the twenty hours with someone i'm saying as an evidentiary matter and also with the testimony that there's no particular time  period for working sure you have evidence that takes a while longer than that but under the circumstances that they managed to get by with somebody in this position working i don't know the exact number of hours but let's say it's twenty hours a week as an effort bench or a matter and as a question of fact couldn't a reasonable jury conclude that the evidence support big could get by another thirty days and it was a reasonable accommodation to say that he would be working according to what he suggested five days a week four hours a day for the next thirty days and that big business would have been just fine first i would say that i don't think there's any evidence in the record that they only flew people in for twenty hours a week they flew people they flew people in not what's clear in mr green acknowledged in his testimony that they had to cover for him when at whenever he was out the evidence your record is not exactly clear as to who was there exactly how long or for what days but he's clear that they had to cover for him now as to whether they get by well i think the law is also quite  the legal standard that's the first thing it's not legal standard your honor yes i mean does anybody think the business fell apart the billions and fall apart even though brian greene wasn't there for months and months at a time that doesn't mean is essential for his position that he'd be there the point i've tried to make is that there's a lack of evidence from the plaintiff who has the burden of showing that he could do the essential functions of the job in four hours a day and there's no such evidence and that there's no obligation to give him some kind of work hardening program that he seems to think that he's off but that he's entitled to have mr gurney countered with the seven circuit case called palace but that's i want to make the point because the only reason his reply brief and i haven't had a chance to address it obviously not controlling particularly in light of lobby and it doesn't say that a part time gradual return to work is always required but only that it might have been a reasonable under the facts of that case and it presented completely different facts that make it in apis that here he had an accident and then he was suspiciously totally was fired because he couldn't do his job even though the only thing that he couldn't do after his accident was something he already wasn't doing before his accident there's no other discussion of essential functions in the case nothing to indicate that his full time attendance was essential or that he could not otherwise performance depositions taken of the people that were flown in terms how long they worked there were depositions taken i so what a big show in terms of did they come in on a monday and work monday morning through left at the end of  is that working more than eight hours a day five days a week is not an essential function of the i don't recall him speaking in those words your honor i'm not saying he didn't but i remember i think that what he was saying was it is long as it takes to get the job done the plaintiff conceded he was told it took eight to nine hours a day that's the yeven shows it was ten to twelve and and there was direct evidence that it took more than four i am running out of time so if i could quickly move to the other periods of time knew that was what happened and no evidence that he didn't wasn't entitled to rely on the doctor's note that it happened and it's vindicated by by the fact that he continued to work all through april until he collapsed in may so let's talk about his deposition now he says he didn't understand the question but there's no evidence in the record from mr green he didn't understand the question frankly asked to clarify a question and then answered it yes he was unable to work in any capacity after maybe you could  mark at the september discussion that he cited to the district court in this court he gave two doctors notes to different doctors submitted statements that he should never come back to big mark as a result of the trauma he endured there which they say culminated on may second two r several points cancer states well there's no evidence that anyone has worked part time there's no evidence that anyone else had their hours reduced of course there was no evidence of that because there was one hundred percent rule what happened to the people that were flown in that position in answer to that question yes i took the deposition mr know it was out how long they worked i asked him specifically how many times did you come in and real evidence in the record whatsoever us ok you were there on monday or part of this week did you ask how many hours each day you worked i can tell you right off the top of my head this specific question but i did ask how often with what frequency if you ask how many hours a week have talking about something that is far as acting tail has really nothing to do with the cats well i think well i do disagree to this extent i believe the a da imposes an obligation and i think the case l itself in making accommodations i don't think you found that no i agree with that that you don't find that language you doubt it in the case law but the underlying assumption here is that that they needed to be not your honor i agree that the employer does not have to impose on itself undue hardship but what the law requires i believe in case present and case president stablished that part of the analysis of for him to be working basically half time this is the evidence is that they functioned for periods of time with mr the the problem with that and i think forty five hours a week they were there the whole time he was gone would that mean you lose the case because that's pretty good confirmation it was an eight to nine hour job there flying people in for gosh sakes well i think it's evident i realize that you don't you challenge assume they fly people in every day he's gone and while they're there they do just what the other evidence shows work ate at least eight or nine hours a day i think that is that would be strong evidence but it's not dispositive i know because there aren't but there's counter evidence then the one i would like to know what the evidence in the record is that supports that he could do the that he could discharge the obligations of the job in that time were that it would not be a hardship to evidence that it would not a hardship is the fact that they went on for so many so many months with saying that they had an obligation to fly people in no they didn't have an obligation to do that but the evidence is the question is would it have posed an undue hardship he was requesting a reasonable accommodation that did not that had was not permitted and requests and and had predictable attendance why is that move to have him come in for those hours why is that more of a hardship on the company than to have a not there at all of then that's the other question do you agree that there is no evidence regarding how often or how many hours