additional beast beyond that to september twenty ninth and then granted his entire five months of leave as paid leave richard believe it wasn't required to do under the statute in response that mr bell was when his leave ended didn't show up for an additional four weeks at which note that he might need to be out to october and november but the critical question around here is whether that was a protected act where whether the doctor's note was a protected activity under the move was given in the in the district court district where you were going about this one was one sentence if you will that might seem to conflate the two but i don't find in jurisprudence a tie in between the case law that says a request for indefinite leave is not is not a reasonable i don't have any answer from the trial record about why it took so wrong to sample set to send out rather but i think it's clear from the record that they started the correct and which fact is incorrect the purpose of raising the question is this you got to the jury and the jury arrived at a verdict and you know we're not in the business unless there is an er mr page where you get started sometimes you have an opportunity to teach in law schools talk about how i had tried to caution the students not done in my world actually and then once the last especially was on what is a beer a very difficult claim to appeal a retaliation claim which almost exclusively is in the description of the jury to determine what was the motivating factor that drove the decision here and what was a very under the circumstances a reasonable judicious award that will ultimately gets appealed and the kind of the merit of the arguments on appeal i think is sorely lacking in a lot of respects as you identified there was no alleged error that occurred at trial there was no improper instruction there was no evidence that wal mart goes in the rug to preserve there was no misconduct by a plaintiff counsel there was no improper activity by the jury or indeed alleged promotions after every one of those disciplines so this is not a situation where somebody is a very disciplined he's been disappointing show the record of success and the ability to learn from a correct yeah right i didn't edit he was more he sure went right because very few people in this world fully comply with everything their doctor says and i don't think it's a good idea to kind of get into the second guessing in that sort of situation there could be active noncompliance wouldn't which might create an issue but there's no evidence of that here there is some evidence of lack of compliance but he's were sort of believing the lies that were being told about you know i don't i'm speculating as to what the jury found egregious but i think going to good position to say were the most egregious things that wal mart did charm managers his claim adamant claim that moldable people had attempted to contact barry bowles to lure him but his we've had expired and that he needed to come back right there's only one number that wal mart ever called him on it was on his cell phone we had the cell phone records there were no calls wal mart never produced anyone a trial to say less and no one who made the calls no one came to testify they made the calls and medical care and what he was coming back but also claimed that he did it's reasonable for the jury to believe that the reason he's texting with donald is to tell him what's going on with as we but is this egregious or is this kind of in the because only got to be you're saying they didn't they're saying they contacted them in october you're saying there's no phone calls you're saying we have a gotcha but the bottom line is he kept getting paid no kept getting a paycheck that's correct he had to leave all the way through the end of october he comes back to work on go to work and gets this mysterious this computer shutdown i got to worry about myself because mine was shut down yesterday problem is the store managers are sort of a fair amount of training in the actual roles and rights related to employee relations and believes that people are entitled to so he should do it because god doesn't know doable to employees for medical conditions is really fair do you with us for all the time there are hundreds of people that work in stores there are people who are constantly on the leave i why they have a corporate leave group that's administrating these leaves so there's evidence of animists there's no evidence of any attempt to warn there's active concealment of what actually occurred so the jury had a reasonable basis to believe in pond that walmart was the route we wanted them and you know i but council effectively cleared the jury to work punitive damages after there was an award of retaliation which is a problem most employers are going to say in most employment counselor can made reasonable when we've that he could work which might have been something that they could have done based only doctor certification so the doctor should have thought as to when needed and makes a request the recommendation of doctors a reasonable jury could do that you're not supposed to be deciding the facts here in two different drudges on the bush record that are particularly sympathetic the point it's already found that there was sufficient evidence for this matter to go to a jury of probably constituted and probably instruct the jury already found that there was sufficient evidence to meet our obligation approved mr page if you want to any discussion of the fish well i think we understand your position i would say just one thing on sort of a norm going over my time the limited success cases  and the second point was the timing of the letter which perhaps goes to the green just activity question but i think it's far disconnected temporarily from the protected activity from taking the lead and i don't think back in support a claim it and i'm not have a potential problem correct because if they did while he was taking his lead and they knew he this might be actual november then they would have a problem so right you can't really say all they should have done it during that time that they did damages but i don't think that serves a useful purpose here i think the evidence did show that attempted to contact him but more importantly i think the evidence was clear at trial that he didn't attempt to contact me until after he the evidence was clear at trial would make the decision about terminating him is that argument made below that they weren't they couldn't actively i believe that was needed all of us are but i don't have citations for that before me