after mcallister's brief factual disputes remain that would enable a jury to find for professor knock on our failure to accommodate reasonably chronic valley pain and claim and her sexual orientation discriminatory destroyed claim succeeded and so she states a disability discriminatory discharge claim as the f in l a amendment denial mcalister punted proof that not because actions didn't add up to comprise sexual harassment or sexual assault on its own existing written policies that the adult alone admitted to mcalister's impartial investigators she pursued her former teacher for a post graduation relationship and that mcallister made ever claim the court should reverse remand for trial these these claims can address the failure to accommodate reasonably claim last year honors to work disk class time that was the structured time unstructured time by contrast office hours correcting papers meeting students so filling mandatory obligations for  absolutely they were professor nako pleaded numerous times in her amended complaint which was verified she pleaded to request for medical leave macalister denied her leave finally when she requested leaving two thousand and thirteen she was threatened with her job by including that services director graff then provost marie ratified th too at that time as well i thought that was neat i don't know was no course really should be doing five credit five courses throughout the acted i thought her deposition she said that two and a two in the spring if needed it would make two versus three or three versus two that was the problem so there was no there was no real get banned accommodation and we roll around a two thousand and fifteen she requested stated falsely and incumbent provost attempted to cover up for so what happened when she finally when she asked for leave in two thousand and fifteen ok and directly contradicting murray's own testimony her own live at record one thousand and eight so is that she walked with the english department chair english down to the finance employee lynn hertz and said here she is get the coverage professor nachas course in the in the fall semester so she can have this course release well mcalister fired her before she could enjoy that course release binding mcallister testified that she had followed up and two thousand and twelve counsel with what proof is there in the record to indicate that the eventual terminations was not connected directly factual investigation through his mcallister college harassment committee factual no judgement following prescribed regulations they found st there was no nope no pressure upon the student nd they found that the meeting took place on the th of may which was after clot courses classes were in grades were in there was no discussion about work before that ok they found that the student doe had pursued professor now after graduation and if the relationship commenced after graduation it found that the student publicized their relationship and that the professor ended it even after the student had become of an employee and attempted to pursue it they also found that i don't know if you got here you're within your rebuttal i know i got it i've got of ok i'll sum this up really quickly judge ok so they harassment did not add up to sexual assault the college skirted the fact that the student stated plainly never alleged sexual assault but they tried to bring that in and then when it comes to pre t you find mo talking about a hypothetical professor meeting i know many years later and maybe that wouldn't be so bad well you are touting exactly that same reality that there both of them are equally stupid now you don't refer to a support purported victim as stupid and holding them equally well they will for equal the same sex  and please the court i like to use my time today in the way that the court would deem most helpful so if the court has has issues or questions at the outset i can address those otherwise i think my time would best be spam walking through the various challenges here and highlighting the easiest way to affirm this is a straightforward case there is no air of law the legal issues are well saddled and none of the material facts are in dispute appellant raises five issue the rule twelve dismissal of her disability discrimination claims denial of her motion to amend and the rule fifty six dismissal of her claims for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and failure to accommodate disability district court found the disability discrimination claims in particular were properly dismissed because appellant failed to plead any disability based and unless by the actual decision makers in the case and she did not allege any non disabled comparatives they were treated more disability accommodations somehow used the new provost the faculty committee and everyone else who was involved in the decision to terminate appellant as a cat's paw for disability discrimination the easiest way to dispose of this is to find correctly that the argument has been waived because it was not argued below in addition nor in the complaint are there any facts to support this theory appellant to not plead anything that would suggest that the actual decision makers in the case time scouring the record to locate all of the evidence that might support proponents claims and it found not first as to the discrimination claims the court found there was no evidence there was no direct evidence e what changed in two thousand and fifteen was not a palin sex or sexual orientation what changed was that a student came forward with a complaint that appellant had improperly engaged in a sexual relationship with her in class that individual was that complaint was heard by mcallister thirteen years prior to when a pal a case was heard and involved not of the same decision maker and as the in his class graduated they got married six to seven years after she had been as class no complaint was brought to mcallister about professor sears conduct there were no comparable decision makers because there was no decision the appeal resulted in affirmative a discharge now as the district court found a palette has not whatever issues she has sought to raise with respect to the  this court how about that i'm an employee has no right to accommodations beyond those that are required for her to do her job so that testimony from a palin is fatal to back claims the court has question what happens if they complain a lot had to go to from a resolution it did although the m c h seen the writer chaz topaz found out this is the facts don't add up to sexual harassment they don't add up the sexual assault let's not change the policy in the in midstream for and i won't sign off anything that does so for this case and incumbent co host marie there was no factual basis for this made up relationship between naca and a student i just didn't happen and then we have these ever changing explanations we go from the policy we go to all she could make people vulnerable because she teaches poetry or she set the stage well this courtney american based on these ever changing explanations to be reversible ie suspicious to justify firing professor amir we've got the same thing right right here with professor naca and when it comes to accommodations you don't have to force a worker to move to work in pain it may be cheaper for the employed of jamaica worker especially somebody