permanently restricting him from having work without any medical information and for which he requested accommodation but was refused dr calle did not obtain any medical information from mr gary hart or from his seventeen the court in this matter in addressing the issue is made several errors i think the most glaring is the fact that they accepted the fact understand the case the the employer has two doctors who at the time said that your client could not safely work in so they're saying he's not qualified to work in there because it be very dangerous for him and i guess i just want to ask you what evidence would you point to that in your view creates a genuine issue with all the protective gear that was required up until the time that dr calle decided he was no longer qualified after her knee operation didn't work at all for about three years he work after he had a job a bypass surgery and what you're seeing other times that he was intermittently restricted from working working yet but was always returned to working their position and there were never any concerns expressed by any of his supervisors to anyone that he was unable to perform that job but did he go back to them after his heart attack yes he went back to be oven after he was released from full cardiac the primary physicians notation after that two thousand and sixteen matter that he will as they quote unquote can do regular office work well that was with regard to  a period of time where he was recuperating from hernia surgery and was prohibited from lifting which was a temporary restriction on the kept on work but in fact what led to dr cable eliminating him from her permanently restricting him from countdown work was his return from that hernia surgery where dr calle did a very cursory provided any restrictions regarding cardiac issues that in fact four days earlier or stone could call the doctor with their tears office and specifically went over what the restrictions were an active process to reach some kind of agreement regarding an accommodation i don't know if you want to address that where you have the floor here or you want to go back to the forest so whether he should have accommodation process crews and i r t they have vitiate that whenever someone cannot perform the essential functions of their job so that's how the accommodation process starts with the part during that process  they are required to look at various things and one of them is you know is there a way to accommodate somebody by job restructuring but the departed considered that to be a reasonable accommodation that's why they assigned him to that however they did absolutely nothing to determine whether or not it is an undue hardship continuing him in that position would have been in one day a hardship for them bay had a blanket prohibition of that any staffing whatsoever any increase in staffing which that position would have been always a hardship and we're going to continue to do that you have heard you have any cases you can point us to for the proposition that as part of this interactive process in good faith the employer has to be upon there because in that case there was a firefighters position that was a an individual was not allowed to drive as a firefighter emergency vehicles and one of the accommodations that was requests that was one don't make me drive on the word safety nation and the other was assigned me to a position of a fire inspector  the defendants in that case argued that the fire inspectors position really wasn't a new position because the all it was was a firefighter who was assigned an inspector and in that case the court said now we think you're trying to pull a fast win here because that in fact is a position which is available they had a person he was coming out of that position he could've went our case to see whether or not and i'm due a hardship a blanket prohibition it gives them undue hardship in this case would require them to look at whether or not creating a new position would created i'm appearing on behalf of dupont the employer our position is of course that the district court properly adjudicated in granted summary judgment to department on both claims failure to reasonably accommodate and also disability discrimination or disparate treatment the court properly analyze the undisputed facts and apply it be applicable law and came to the right conclusion now i'll address many of my colleagues comments in the course of these subject and questions but as to dr calle as of an restriction it the case law says that it has to be objectively reasonable to place a restriction on an employee and if it is then the employer is entitled to rely on that because objective objective lee reasonable reliance is the standard that's the michael vs city of detroit police department case dr calle is not a dupont employed dr calle is an independent occupational medical doctor and he provides medical opinions that dupont to make sure employees can safely and without hazard to their health perform their job duties he has no reason to short change mr garrett or anyone else he testified on numerous occasions at a position that his primary concern is the health and safety of the employee and it's not his role to make determinations what's better or worse for their  job or their career as far as the statement that there was no medical evidence dr calle was quite clear that he went back to the entire big picture history of mr gary hart situation he had triple bypass surgery on may th two thousand and fourteen and he was out of work from late april until september th two thousand and fourteen completely out of work you then came back for most of october subject to a light duty assignment and he involved his personal doctors during that period of his health crisis a doctor young who is a cardiologist a doctor ronald mellor who is a cardiac surgeon and another cardiologist named churches they eventually submitted return to work documentation that said mr get hurt could safely return to the open in at that point he was this was november of two thousand and sixteen dr young also said that he was released to return to of and work so long as he remained asymptomatic from a cardiac standpoint that didn't happen then was taken off work for another three to four days by his primary care physician you came back to work and he was restricted from the oven and then he had umbilical surgery you know august of tw sixteen which prevented him from working at all the point being that when dr calle put a permanent of an restriction on mr gary hart on our august i believe rd two thousand and sixteen here's what he said  deposition which the district court noted i was looking at the whole picture my decision was based on reading what had benteke lee transpired that led up to this which were hospitalization transferred to a higher acuity facility uncontrolled blood pressure changes in medication and my number one concern is their safety clearly that is more than just taking mr gary hart's word for it and mr gearhart when he came back in august did say my cardiologist unquote was uncomfortable with me working in a hot oven he told them that he later said it was the statement was he's uncomfortable with anyone working in a hot tub but the fact is it was an objectively reasonable determination to restrict mr giver her from working in enough there are no do overs in that kind of a position a person returning from open heart surgery whose own cardiologist expresses discomfort and dr calle taking the whole picture it was objective lee reasonable for him to restrict your heart from that one position working in an oven where the temperatures get up to one hundred and forty degrees  crawling around on hands and knees that's all the restriction was of didn't work anything else was not covered now as to the interactive process that's well recognized to be a two way street the employee has just as much obligation to proceed in good faith as the employer does and mr gearhart argues now that his cardiologist dr mcgorry and should have been involved in that process but there's no evidence in the record that he ever made an effort to brazilian information from that cardiologist he did that in two thousand and fourteen so he knew that would be taken into consideration by dr kill relative to the oven restriction but he chose not to do that we did find out later dr killed and even though the name of gorean until his deposition and it turned out the doctor mcgauran had exactly the same diagnosis based on a full medical exam as dr calle work restriction due to his cardiac history mr garrett should not work in an oven with elevated temperatures it confirmed calles medical judgment again making it objectively reasonable potenza accommodations that he could do one was elevating him to a higher level position level for another was this monomer dumping assignment that mr close talked about and a rd was he wanted to work in a different area of the plant where of and work was required but he had heard that it was cooler and less strenuous than that kept on as to the monomer dumping that was always known to be a temporary assignment to fill a business need monomer dumping was not an individual job it was part of the overall kept on casting job one essential a quick recap of which was o once the temporary need for a monomer dumping was expired there was no longer a need they would have had to hire additional staffing in order to keep him on as a monomer dumper could to cover the o and has judge catholic observed there is no case law that makes that part of the reasonable accommodation obligation and employers don't have to add additional staffing and they don't have to impair the rights of other employees that's that's correct judge a guy years and years before that there had been a position of monomer dumping but that was several years in the past and by two thousand and sixteen it was part of the overall job of kept on casting so the monomer dumping was actually a an effort to reasonably accommodate him for the time period that it was able to do so but it was not a specific job i would argue too  that in the summary judgment briefing the appellant waived the argument that monomer dumping should have been a permanent reasonable accommodation because he specifically said that in the response brief that he was not challenging dupont's inability to provide that accommodation that under armstrong versus city of mel bill is a waiver before this court that you need to be addressed but even though it is being and again it has an oven as a as an essential requirement that oven gets up to one hundred and five dollars degrees you know also requires p p e it also requires strenuous work on an elevated temperatures at that time cayle got together with human resources dupont and occupational health and safety a manager as well as the area manager for the ted lar cudmore area and they made the determination that the medical restriction of no hot oven work applied in ted maher just as it did in kept on so by december of two thousand and sixteen they had exhausted the  options for a reasonable accommodation and mr gary hart didn't come forward with anything new or any other propositions and that's when his employment ended with a long term disability application that was was granted now i just like to comment quickly mr close didn't didn't mention it but the brief has a lot of argument about comparing mr garrett hard to an employee named kim clark i would just point out that the case law recognizes longstanding that it's an individualized inquiry this interactive process comparing one employee to another employee who have entirely different situations is not a proper comparison miss clark had asthma was precluded from wearing a respirator this in turn precluded her from doing other than work and it all happened in he she was permanently restricted just as is gary her was from working in the oven in october of two thousand and fourteen cases this is two years prior to mr garrett situation which is entirely different triple bypass surgery in the space of a year and a half  and sixteen recurrence of heart problems hospitalization elevated blood pressure and the like relative to the disparate treatment case miss miss clark is not a proper compared to her because she's not similarly situated to mr garrett for the reasons i stated and also she's not a non disabled person so comparing his situation to hers under the prime aphasia elements it doesn't add up because she too was disabled and also not similarly situated he couldn't satisfy the prime the fish elements of disparate treatment also gary hart because of the medical restriction was unable to perform the essential job functions and the kept on casting area so with those comments your honors it unless you have any questions i'll rest and i believe the district court's judgment should be affirmed respectfully charles testimony his deposition he did know what that time he did not know what the door open temperature was he didn't know the difference in the layers of clothing he did no testing perceived to be restricted because of that dark ale but most importantly dr calle was asked whether or not he had made any inquiries whatsoever of  gerrard's cardiologist regarding his ability and their response was if you would he was asked have you had a conversation with david garrard that says you need to get me this information from your cardiologist if you want me to reconsider your respects sions of words to that effect it was exactly what he had done with miss kim clark and the respirator and dr chen which is part of the briefing saying that yes i have that's exactly where it came from they had information it was provided on the return to work slips or releases to return to work but they had no medical records whatsoever regarding what is recommendation that he be restricted from of and work because of a medical condition without ever having reviewed or obtaining recent objective ised medical as a physician a statement that he could without any without placing yourself in jeopardy of work in the uk no he never he never did that because he was never asked to dr teo made a de does he have an obligation to affirmatively come forward and say i can do a job when he hasn't been restricted from a job by his medical doctor dr kills the one who did that if dr kill wanted to restrict him on the basis of medical information dr calle should have reached out like he did with kim clark and recommending three separate palm a knowledge of for her from the company these were these were jim clark's personal personally i don't think that what what the medical condition is and what a medical doctor reaches out for in terms of the request for accommodation should have if you  have no bearing upon whether or not the doctor reaches out for some type of medical information but doesn't reach out for other type of medical information you're requesting an accommodation based on a medical condition whatever that medical condition is that that doesn't necessarily allow the doctor discretion to say well i don't need to ask about this medical condition but i do need to ask about another one that that's that's i think inherent in the interactive process ok