and it was something out of summary judgment by the district court primarily because the argument was that the employer didn't know that he had a disability and self focused on that issue the disability as he actually has a stroke or had a stroke which paralyzed him and part of his body but the visibility was that the two he had to use a wheelchair to get around and the way the process works in this case when you apply for a job you would go down for sexually on a preliminary screening process where you would go into a room in a computer your application and then at the end of that process you'd be taken into a back room where you sit down with a then when he went to go to the back room we couldn't fit through the door wheelchair wouldn't fit through the door and the regime a minor ruckus in this room because he complained that you know how can you call yourself an employment application place you can get through the door  to accommodate him the person from the back him out sat down with him interviewed him in the in a public waiting room and then have him hand write his name and then he went back into the back room where she felt completed application thrust of your argument that notwithstanding the deposition testimony by the person who actually decided not to select him for a follow up interview these facts are sufficient to permitted jury to make any inference that the decision make must have known about your client's disability at the time the selection decision was it's two parts first the judge we were trying to prove this one of the macdonald douglas circumstantial evidence so  first element of his disability obviously because you came in a wheelchair and they interviewed you said the hotel you're asking us essentially to adopt sort of a corporate entity standpoint that if any employee of the hotel knew then the first it wasn't a low level employee this person actually evaluated my clients on our scale and gave him ratings which were then used later on in the process to determine whether they interviewed him but she isn't the one who actually made th process he gets to the prima fashion part which is the first four elements then the question becomes why wasn't he selected if this person who saw him thought that he had these good qualities then why did the person who ultimately didn't select him because they found other people who also had good qualities and decided to hire somebody else well but didn't mean if you're going to quit my client was never going to be the there's three people involved in this case there are two individuals who were selected for an interview initially offered a job the first person the first person didn't make the cut for security reasons and they offered the job of the second person if you made it my client was never given an interview and that's the question why wouldn't based upon this and this will screen process for my flight rated the highest wouldn't he be given an interview when these other two people were was there any element on which the person who saw your client in the wheelchair reviewed your client which in any way can give a hint to somebody  experience so the person the second person who look at that location could look at the experience and apparently by themselves and decide whether the initial reading was correct or not the second one was job stability the initial rate or rate of the person the second person going to get a look at the application and decide whether job stability was a criteria the other three elements are all based upon the first person's looking at them but it's passed the first level did he not in other words by virtue of the fact that he scored  whatever it was a two or three point five you're right he got past what i we'll call the first obstacle but he and then then another reviewer looked at his scoring in comparison with the scoring of other applicants who had also made it past the first their ear and decided which out of that group they would select for the second level of review which included interviews that is not how we're essentially right that they question  well just look at the application itself then there is evidence on that occasion where he has looked he was rated lower according to the initial screen or she rated him lower because of what happened when he couldn't get through the that's what she said he said i said you know how come i can't get through the door this is i mean this is a person in a wheelchair who's trying to get a job and they wanted the door one in line think back to the place second thing is  tie like you know that was his appearance or presentation was the one that was lower because of that now the other thing is on the application itself because he couldn't sign it and these are signed electronically she wrote in the following words business should know that he is her boss should know now and that her testified that she never told bill who was the real decision maker in this case that's correct why shouldn't we apply type of knowledge which a business wants to know about and therefore in law is deemed to know and i appreciate the plain my response that is that in your traditional agency principles you look at the nature of the agency relationship what the agent is carried out or expected to do and terms that receiving information and the credit of the agency relationship in terms of including knowledge to a corporate entity such as we have here i the circumstantial evidence used you could certainly argue that point and that's if you can and summary judgment shouldn't be granted well but the point here is that there again there is no duty independently given the nature of  company especially throughout the human resources department there's no showing of any evidence to that expect if i could respond to the point that mr several and they had a moment ago on the reading sheet miss jones raided mr donnelly in such a fashion where she ms never or anyone else we guarding mr donnelly she reviewed his kidnapper cation independently and she chose not to interview him that alone indicates that there is no discriminatory unusual circumstances here with any bill to find the electronic signature pad that the plaintiff argues is capable of only one interpretation and i disagree with that and we disagreed with that below because the fact  by the decision maker misspell of it let me ask you a practical question as i understand it mr godwin unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the fuel that's what impact does that have on the continuing is that you have to show that the employer who took the adverse action had knowledge it's a logical precondition to any possible finding of discriminatory motives or intent we don't have that here there's no evidence  knew of his employees disability he was actually involved in supervising and administering progressive discipline under attendance standards for that employee there was evidence in the record that the supervisor was an interpol part in any discipline or just charged the station for feedback purposes and this court found that there was a duty on mr kimber a supervisor's part if you carry that information forward to the company as the employer case where the cry it out to say that at least for the prima facia case the employer knew about this disability from a variety of reasons so the question becomes do we get to the prefect stage and you know we laid out in great detail all kinds of consistenc employer can be tagged with mentally well first off just because she says she didn't know i think you don't have to assume that you don't have to believe what she says when these kind of things happen all the time where they say something and you know burden of proof proving the tribal issues or her like two buildings across the hall from each other the application of self she puts in bold letters do the unusual circumstances which seems to be a very politic thing for her to thank you but instead the guy was in a wheelchair and he made a real rockets here the person as a culture if you look at the job description the job descriptions says you have to be able to walk back and forth in the office you have to go a thousand feet sometimes you have to go all around there are a lot of things in this job description which someone in a wheelchair would have to be a