summary judgment in favor of the defendant the district court held that janet could not prove that she could perform the central functions over job because her weight restrictions purportedly prevented her from lifting the amount of weight that a handler aesthetics was required to lift the decision is wrong because it didn't consider facts a plan as in fact could and actually did do the job there are three main points to this appeal st plane of could lift the weight did it for three weeks before she was terminated a nd point is playing a better cope cole employee testified to the weight that need to be lifted and they were within a lifting restrictions and with the frequency that she was required to lift weights overhead and above are ways rd that was clear pretext for the terminations which plaintiff has continued to argue but it was never addressed by the district court with regard to pretext the reasons for plaintiff terminations are set forth in a letter by jennifer jennifer ramos and she put in janet never complained and secondly employees are not required nor could anybody list any pipe pounds above the waist and overheads in fact as noted in our brief how the seventy five pound rule was described by the defendant underwent a constant evolution by the defendant during the course of them documenting claims terminations st when plaintiff initially worked for fed ex in two thousand and thirteen before she was terminated at the time of her terminations they said  that her lifting restriction was sixty pounds sort of way they then said at that time that the seventy five dollars pounds was a requirement that you needed to do that you need to be able to lift that's all it said didn't say anything about lifting the way above the waist or overhead to put the seventy five pounds aside and accept that as a district court found that there's been the issue of fact as to whether or not that was required is that your burden to prove that the employee because that became an interesting question only because the goalpost kept shifting and kept changing when we were doing the case so it's our it's our burden to prove that she could do the job and there's no question about that the problem became is that fed ex never evidence that she was required to do that and even even the district court since the time that there was an essential function to lift more than fifteen pounds over her head there just was no requirement to do that and there's and you can look at you could look at the defendant briefs from cover to cover their materials there's a material fact there's not a single fact stating that you need to be able to lift over step over fifteen pounds over her head and you know with regard to the to the paucity of facts regarding the weight restrictions the only two facts that the defendant ever promulgated about weight lifting requirements was the seventy five dollars pound requirement which we've discussed but nessun writing and then there was an oral requirement you know given to testimony that the average package weight was fifteen pounds but nothing was said about this average weight of a package being fifteen pounds whether that was a fifteen pounds at need to be lifted over over head or above the waist there are not and in fact the evidence was that was that heavier packages would necessarily be packed lower to the ground because it was safety issue and it was just made more sense to do that first but i ask you to address a point in the defendant's brief and understood them to be what she was asked to do but she wasn't given an accommodation and there was no discussion of an accommodation and the percentage didn't present any accommodation issue and she did the job for three weeks without complaint and the only reason that she stopped doing the  job she was made to step doing the jobs not because she was unsuccessful doing the job because her supervisors were fine with her performance but because somebody from corporate noticed she was working and then raise an issue and then it's a roughly nearly three weeks to deal with and she continued until that time  she was asked to do to did which he she was going to do and the other issue then and the motion to reconsider went to district court so we didn't prevent present sufficient evidence to show that she could lift packages what's a left hand the cyst for overhead lifted so the way i understood it was that hurt her right arm her right shoulder was the injured shoulder that she injured the st fence is working there as long as she could assist with her left hand she could lift up the fifteen two thousand and thirteen majors vs general electric opinion by looking at the employer's judgment written job descriptions the amount of time spent on the function and the experience of those previously are currently holding the position i euros in your brief while a handler u g and station does not necessarily need to be able to lift a seventy five pound package above her head no overwhelming evidence that's not required i it i think that's right your honor i think and reality and in practice you know when handler is building cans or placing packages onto a carriers truck i think it's extremely doubtful that a in violation of her doctor's restrictions sure sure your honor st obviously as the discussion a few moments ago talked about what mr task is actual testimony was on whether or not she was loading trucks but what the evidence before the district court is several points st there was evidence about how many packages were traveling through that particular facility on any given day than there was packages b other employees for example lori bras m r o z testified that she reached over had tons of packages that weighed five or fifteen pounds on a daily basis and i found that and then you had the testimony of mr brush about lifting packages above the waist roughly fifty percent of the time to load and unload cans and thirty three percent of the time to load and unload trucks stablished is that you know the volume going through that facility varies from day to day certainly but the require the is that so fair and so i'm sorry i was asking for specific evidence that the job requires waited to rial laid her medical restrictions which was fifteen pounds up to her waist and then lifting packages over five pounds about her hat and her doctor said she could do thirty pounds ways to shoulder  so you're familiar with our decision against illinois department of transportation yes your honor where d in essence of the fact that the point if had been succeeding able to do the job was pretty relevant to deciding whether he was able to handle the essential functions here we've got evidence that she was doing the job without complains for three weeks and i'm looking for some specific contradictions that would somehow undermine the probity for people that might be given particularly if the summary judgment stage seventy five pounds overhead as if that were right y well i think your honor when the district court looked at the other majors factors to determine what the essential functions war for our of the hammer position we still when and under the fastest decision and essential function in the not encompass the majority of the employees time or even a significant quantity of time to be essential rather essential function must be a fundamental duty of the job and it's fed ex's position in the district court's opinion that having the small hamlet at the end facility the facility in question having the ability to manipulate packages to build these cans and on lot of these cans and load the trucks that there would be packages that would be a p more or less than to fifteen pounds i think it fed ex's burden to establish what the essential functions of the handler position is and we did that test you know they the facts are that it the average weight of the package is going through that particular facility at the time was fifteen pounds and the amount of packages that were going through the network was a stablished and then by testimony management and other employees about how often packages had to be left above the waist or above the shoulder i believe we met that person now as far as who started is to establish once the essential functions are determined it would be  case we got on summary judgment that we have to assume that those facts are disputed and that that letter was falls in both respects i think certainly the district court if i was a material terminations complaints that were raised two years earlier and point thirteen that's not exploitive acted any differently in other words two thousand and thirteen when she had looked in restrictions that were outside of what a had to do they put her on a medical leave of absence allowed or ninety days to bet on a job that she could do with or without accommodations and after that ninety day period when she didn't they terminated or employment that's the same  there's room for debate about that do you agree that for purposes of summary judgment on what we need to treat her challenge to those points in the letter a yes thank you briefly the defendant has continued in this case to talk about the fact that there was a lot of packages moving back and forth and that the average wait was fifteen pounds and that the thirty percent had to be overhead according budget testimony so forth but what they would they do what they want to do is to make the jump from that that necessarily than fifteen pounds more than fifteen pounds had to be lifted overhead but that is not a true jump to bank and certainly it would cause the court to make inferences that go against the plaintiff which it shouldn't do in summary judgment they have never stated that an essential fact was to lift more than fifteen pounds above overhead and in fact plans witnesses both testified that you don't do this and that the most that laurie bro says he lives is five to fifteen pounds bill hutchison sara lee testified you don't live that much weight overhead and they all testified you don't have to go overhead that much at all anyway because there's ways of getting the stack down without having to reach  and that's just the facts of the facts of this case and there's just no fact saying that they have to live that whether she's loading or unloading by the way there's no fact that said she has a lip was insisting pounds over her and you know with regard to the three most letter there was not even an employee who could say were they heard that she said that she complained about the work at that just just came out of nowhere and in fact brandy fowler knowledge of that in an e mail earlier on that she denied ever making a statement with the fact that her witnesses and she testified herself that she could live make lives to require the weight that were required of them plus the fact that she did the work for three weeks to the satisfaction of her supervisors plus they lied about the reasons for terminations because let's face it nobody can live seventy five pounds over head and you know if i did a trial in this case i'd bring a seventy five bucks on dumbbell to court and challenge any of them to live seventy five pounds over their head and then does the circus they do this routinely as a matter of practice was just absurd so for all those reasons i believe that if the case went to trial we would have a good chance of winning and it would be upheld because of the facts of the case that led to it i think you for your time thank you i thanks to both counsel the case i