so prevails all over because the district court committed three years first the court took away the postal services defense by were only instructing the jury that it did not matter which party cost the breakdown in the interact pro even though this court has repeatedly held otherwise second the district court you two postal services offers for accommodations and on top of that he was provided a medical record he made a reasonable accommodation request and the postal service said ok can you send us some medical it would be seventy three issue in each instance on whether these summary judgment documents were legal documents prepared by an attorney whether experts review if that impacted the opinions in one way or the other and whether that might have taken it for the witness the expert to have been provided with the summary judgment so my question is is the mere provision at this time or a judgment motion to the witness to read of background material even if the witness does not rely on it and drying that instructions that say you know listen give it the weight that it deserves she shouldn't have considered that well again i don't you know i don't think it's better either way either way because i don't think the experts would have been excluded in any event but you know again postal service counsel during closing argument for misrepresenting the expert witness instruction in that trial even though there was no misrepresentation and then he told the jury that the postal service supplied to keep the case from going to them minutes before the jury was s person because when you take the instruction in which the judge says it was inappropriate for the post counsel will sort of counsel for provided these documents and then you added on to the questioning of the witness and then while the expert looked at the summary judgment documents by the postal service she reviewed documents on the other side of the coin she reviewed the complaint she reviewed plaintiff's deposition transcript so she saw it from both start and then on top of that her post trial in the in the only reason that we filed on damages we stated you know very near the beginning of the brief that he was not clear he was not entitled to back in from pay because he retired what's not destroyed there we reminded the court that the postal service never terminated him that mr since on the testified that he retired and that the district court dismissed the constructive discharge claim we said there was no evidence that he was terminated and on top of that we put it at the beginning of our weather forecast you know we don't think any extra relief any front and back pay should be provided here that's the same argument we're making now who informed the postal service what he needed in the postal service did not respond to his requests for accommodation and the jury found he was not properly accommodated and not just about i mean there was spaces and they could be taken by the nine hundred employees who parked at the at the front of the building or impact where there was no room to deploy a ramp from a stand mr simms own made it clear that he needed a spot where papers summary judgment papers argued that mr sandstone and simply given up and in or words thrown in the towel rattles and that he was left without a reasonable accommodation and her testimony accord yes she did testify to that but your conclusion was based on something other than and then her interview she couldn't have based your interview and concluded that he threw in the towel without being influenced by their assertion that he had given up his interactions with the postal service rather than that he was denied an opportunity to continue working because he was not given a judges and i think it was appropriate for him to admonish the jury that this was not the normal course of how experts they don't normally proceed by getting one sided set of facts and legal but she read the defendant's interpretation of what those things meant and their argument and she became an advocate for the postal services position rather than a neutral expert who was testifying based on the it was and he came early at six in the dark but the if he had no place to park there was no accommodation that was given to him as to what he was supposed to do there was no place where you could go and the security guard could not reasonably open the four doors at the front of the building that jury found that he was not reasonably accommodated for those reasons i don't want to say with respect to the expert instruction that if this to court to reverse on those grounds we don't think the court should reverse on those grounds but if it does that really goes only to the damages part of his compensatory down moreover he could have gone out on unpaid leave and then been compensated you know under our case law for that he could have been compensated for his i'm paid leave gotten back pay for that but then he chose to retire and so it seems to m failed to ever come up only a few weeks it was a month it was a month of time when he was not allowed to when he was not provided with a month of time from september fourteenth to the end of october when responding to him and it was reasonable for him to conclude that they were not acting in good faith in trying to find a reasonable accommodation for him and they were not going to do so resume its postal service career or to work elsewhere it was an argument about mitigation of damages and that the only argument is a right just they did not make an argument that a discharge of construct a discharge is necessary images are lost wages they made an argument in which they disagreed with judge shaders description about the facts they made an argument about mitigation of damages and they made an argument that is pension payment should be  from his calculation of lost wages but they never made an argument nowhere in that brief did they say that this charter constructed to start to receive damages lost wages there's not a legal argument to that effect employer had to let the employer know how the disability can be accommodated mr sandstone met those burdens it's not an onerous burden it's not supposed to be a complicated formal process because their stance on met his burden of telling the postal service both the nature of his disability and they knew we had multiple sclerosis they knew it was unable to walk and he told them what he needed in terms of  accommodation there was no issue of fact as to those points and so the jury instruction was proper that neither side can win based on failure to cooperate in the interactive process because mr sands only met the burden of the employees with respect to the interactive process service complains about the jury instruction because it says if presented evidence mr sense own did not properly communicate but the only thing that the postal service responded to mr sands on with were a parking they never responded to those considerations so he could not reasonably be found at fault for failing to comply with the interactive process where he let them know what they consideration to or and what time there's a there's a third option is that the employer can't avoid liability if a reasonable accommodation was a possible case or both parties agreed that a reasonable accommodation could have been possible and so the jury was allowed to agree your honor i know that's not the position that i'm trying to take just because a person might call it quits if if you keep asking for a parking spot for instance and that they keep giving you an office as an accommodation if you put it no one can blame you because you're communicated that to the postal service he says that the plant manager sport was unsuitable but again he never communicated that to the postal service and he complains that hey maybe the parking spots in the front lot may have been taken well the plant manager was disabled and his supervisor words disabled they were the only two people actually who actually part in the front parking lot in a disability parking space both of them said at six in the morning they would have had an