with the city of dallas and the partnership that was created to modernize counsel try interrupt you here i guess i'm not i'm not hearing you say what i think you need to say to pull southwest in here on a rehab  but they just they they flew back and forth meccas or had their regional headquarters was there that they would be subject to the rehabilitation that because they took benefits from the modernization of lo thousand different from from united here i mean from up southwest here taking the benefit of the project i mean i've i'm i'm agree with that there's more as i just have real trouble seeing how they received be to the being considered a a recipient of the funds just because they maybe that was a mistake in their tax contribution but that doesn't decide the fact we have to address for  halfway there so let me just jump to a question about your reasonable accommodation klang you say in your brief that your client was and had and had informed all of her trainers and supervisors in denver about her disabilities and request for training as well how did she inform them what does the record show that you have now said that she  deposition did you ever inform the trainers that she had a disability the answer was not point blank but they did make arrangements for additional training based on her telling them that she had at this village correct by people who were not good morning your honors my name is tom carroll on behalf of the defendant appellee southwest airlines your honors i have a few things in mind something of an agenda so to speak of my own but it's apparent to me that the court is well versed in the party's briefs and familiar with the record and so what i'm most interested in doing today is discussing anything that might be on your mind or answering any questions that you might have so before i go any further let me pause and ask if there's anywhere in particular the court  go look at her once in a while over there d you have any thing to say about what the record was on the i do your honor st of all i think the record is very clear and replete with instances that the plaintiff did in fact receive additional training above and beyond what would normally be provided to customer service a service agents including the sworn declarations of the three decision makers who testified as such it's reflected in exhibit a to the bends the declaration of volume two of the record page three hundred and fifty three dollars the talks about in the past tense how the plaintiff had already opted to take advantage of additional training is further reflected in the plaintiff's own exhibit twenty two dollars this is volume five the sealed part of the at page forty seven dollars going on for fifty three dollars pages and then finally it's represented in page eight hundred dollars of the record on appeal which just picks up in january at the very tail end of things that shows an additional two weeks or ten days worth of training as to who provided the training your honor the a t o only requires reasonable accommodations it does not require a companies like southwest to provide the employees preferred accommodation and in this case the accommodation was reasonable and that really also goes to your honor the fact that she did not request an accommodation for her disability we know that at best she told her supervisor she had a learning disability we also know that she requested more training but as this court said very clearly in the e e o c v c r england case in a telecast i may say the plainest job or the employee's job is to make a request for accommodation for her disability and in this case we just don't have isn't it a fair inference especially a summary judgement stage to say that she was asked that that she was asking for extra training because of her disability i mean you say there's no connection but so we'll draw an inference are we supposed to draw inferences in favor of the plaintiff at that point you are your honor but in this case i don't think it applies and i would go back to the c r england case itself in that case everybody knew that the plaintiff had a and in that case everyone knew that the plaintiff was asking for time off i believe he even referenced time to go see my doctor and the court held that he just did not connect the two and i would say the same is true here if she's saying she has a learning disability and she's asking for more training i don't think that she connected to but most importantly your honor is your question alluded to during the appellant's argument southwest did provide a reasonable accommodation it was good training it was above and beyond what other people in her situation would be receiving briefs where under the rehabilitation act the court said the rehabilitation act does not grant relief to one who is incapable of performing a job even with additional training similarly in the profs card case out of the district of utah which we that will only if i had some more training maybe i'd be able to do the job and the district court there recognized correctly i would say that at some point it becomes speculation you're speculating as to whether you can in fact perform essential functions of the job and here  versus what she told the folks in denver supervisors in denver and i'm not i want i want you to expand on that distinction a little see suggesting that she told both that her deposition says i answer brief at page forty four in particular our footnote ten as we read the evidence the plaintiff has made clear that when she talks about whom did she inform of her learning that disability that that was directed to her time in dallas the two week period of time when she was in dallas for training and i might mention that the record is very clear that the plaintiff does not have any complaints about her time in dallas so that's our position there have answered a question i guess i guess i'm wondering why if she tall is she truly did tell people in dallas and she says she did that she had a learning disability and if as judge matheson says we can infer that that because of that learning disabilities she needed more training why can't we also inference that  to answer the question i would st once again reiterate that she did receive the accommodation that she requested so i think the court doesn't even need to decide did she in fact properly make a request but as to your question in particular i think this goes to the fact that southwest does have policies  you may have a plea but you better say it to someone else not to me the answer is no your honor it would be speculation as to why no one told her that but i would say it's our position that she never requested the accommodations or no one would have had the opportunity to tell her to go ask someone else instead in trying to sort out your arguments it almost seems like you're making some alternative because on the one hand page forty of your brief you refer to her unknown disability and yet you're also saying that she received reasonable accommodate commendation for everything she requested but you have also argued that she didn't ask reasonable accommodation in denver burden shifting framework of a failure to accommodate claim and we have several are two hundred of arguments you are exactly correct any one of which is enough to affirm the district court if this court agrees st of all you'd argue that she's not otherwise qualified the  essential job functions without an accommodation i think there's no question in this record that she could not the nd question then becomes is there a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform the essential job functions it's our position that southwest provided her that exactly the training that she requested the additional training above and beyond what other people would have received and whether you call that a reasonable accommodation or whether you call that additional training the fact is that she was not yet or still was not able to perform  training but how can you say that there isn't anything else a lot of work well we do know that whatever it is that she allegedly requested additional training if you grant her that she made that request that we provided it and the  doesn't guarantee that an employee gets their requested accommodation it only requires reasonable combinations and your honor i think the additional training that she received as reflected through her fifty day review the list of  training eight hundred of volume two in the record on appeal and the fifty three page exhibit of people talking about the training that she received it is our position going back to your original question that if the court finds that she's qualified and if the court finds that she properly requested an accommodation then in the end southwest reasonably accommodated her disability as a lot requires you talked about fifty four dollars pages and so forth when we go through the record will there be a discussion of exactly what that introduced in the record below that is i believe in chronological order describing at the end of each day what the different trainers did here's what we worked on here's how it went here are the concerns and the things that ms admins record is not referencing so i think yes you will see it there your honour's the other thing that i wanted to make sure we touch on is the rehabilitation act and in particular this idea that the statute has been amended since the case law that we cited that as u definition of program or activity and they made it very clear that entire company like southwest can only be covered as a whole into circumstances the st is when they receive federal financial assistance as a whole and the nd is when they're in certain industries education health care housing social services industries that don't apply to southwest there's also no allegation here or even argument that southwest received federal financial assistance to the company as a whole that they considered one of their as its object it was in use two ways your honor st of all to finish the definition of programmer activity for companies that do not receive federal financial assistance as a whole  the definition and therefore the act only extends to the entire plant or other comparable geographically separate facility and so the st answer to a question is that regardless of how southwest carry this information there can be nothing more geographically distinct than denver and dallas and so even if you give the plaintiff everything she's arguing as to love field it doesn't extend to denver but even more than that your honor i take this court back to the supreme court's decision in the  s department of transportation be paralyzed veterans and in for no i take you st of to page twenty two of the plaintiffs opening brief where it's very clear and affirmed in her reply brief that as to love field her entire argument stands upon gra made under the airport improvement program your honors that may sound familiar to you because the airport improvement program specifically was at issue in the paralyzed veterans case it is a program your honour's of the airport and airway improvement act and in that case the supreme court has already held that grants under the airport improvement program program do not count as federal financial assistance to commercial airlines at most they go to the operator of the airport there is no evidence in this record that southwest operates love field on the contrary the evidence of the city of dallas airport and you in my last few seconds here your honour's the other thing that i want to make sure i have a moment to touch on if i may is the record on appeal this is been fully briefed i don't think i have much to add except to highlight it that there are these two discovery rulings that are sort of swirling around we wish to make very clear that this is an appeal from a summary judgment ruling that's what it was in the notice of appeal and the docking statement and the only order attached to the opening brief one of the court's local rules was the summary judgment brief so we think that these discovery orders have not been appealed and if the court is inclined to consider them actual content of the one letter in question is also in the record itself as part of e mails to the e e o c thank you thank you honors ms donnelly  focus on the last few days of training at the gate and mr carroll said that there's going to be forty or fifty pages in the appendix that we're going to find that detail exactly what training was provided at the gate  nature of it if she presented any medical evidence of it is there anything beyond just saying that there was a learning disability of course not if there hadn't been in question that she does ha post you're talking about there in litigation where she explains the disability like it's anchorite we're talking about what does that mean we're talking about what did she say about her disability and did she ever provide any medical information did she go to