by hanging the district court erred by granting summary judgment errors county the plaintiff's claims should have gone to a jury because a reasonable jury could have decided based on the evidence in the record that the issues and the facts did amount to liability under the suicide blankets suicide resistant cells or cells without retreating smoke detectors and more frequent monitoring record evidence showed that those three a combination could be and had been made by discrimination this court has said before that intentional discrimination is not the same as deliberate indifference undertaking and also does not require a showing of willfulness malice or animus under the ag what the court has said for example in delano highland is that if the officer or the official repeatedly tries the same technique realizes it's ineffective but then does not attempt to adapt that's enough to show intentionally so most recently  county there was a detainee who requests for a wheelchair the reasonable accommodation was the wheelchair because she had just come out of surgery the doctor had prescribed her wheelchair she came into the facility they gave her the wheelchair then they took it away they gave her crutches instead and said you have to manage on she repeatedly asked to get a wheelchair and they repeatedly refused to me it's it's much easier to find evidence of intentional discrimination when someone is asking for something you know they want it and you're saying no i'm not going to give it to you here these accommodations were never requested you're saying they should have been open and obvious the need for them but it just seems very difficult to prove intentional discrimination from not giving someone an accommodation they never requested you know of any injuries like that where there was if this is not a close case where you had someone with serious mental illness who had never tried to commit suicide before he had tried to commit suicide in this jail eight times ten months before in exactly the same manner in exactly the same part of the jail using his bed sheet to tie a news and tying into the protruding smoke detector it was obvious i believe it was repeated instances i understand that but if i'm the prison guard or the jail guard and i know he was in the mental health unit recently and was looked after all these problems and the doctors there said ok you can go back into the into the regular population why would be open and obvious to me that he still needs all these accommodations and the doctor said we don't need him in the mental health  what the jail's own thirty six witnesses testified a deposition that i think answers that question they said suicide prevention is everyone's responsibility at the jail and jail policy requires everyone continually visually monitored vigilant observation is what they call it and they do it through direct observation so that i in the control center look directly out at the inmates and can hear them that was the way that they did that and so what they said was regardless of what the doctor said everybody's duty was to make sure that they would prevent suicide and the jail classification official testified that they weren't aware of his prior incidents including on suicide attempts they were aware that he was being treated by the psychiatrist and it was their responsibility as well as the doctors responsibility to monitor for suicides suicides the suicide attempts didn't only happen in the mental health unit in fact they more often happened in general population that's why all the custodial staff were trained and were required by policy to constantly be vigilant and so they could have offered him a suicide blanket as they had done previously now we call it a blanket they call it a smock their own policy has called it both things but it's a it's a piece of clothing they can't be used to make a not for to tie a noose out of and the same thing major martin there thirty six witness said everybody in the jail in every custody all staff could order more frequent monitoring of an inmate if they were worried about him even constant observation just one on one sitting across from the in me so all of those three recent accommodations were available regardless of what the  been a sort of tactical matter for years conny to argue that were allowed to rely on their on the medical judgment but as a practice both thirty with six witnesses said that's not in fact what they did jail classification made its own decisions with regard to where they put someone in a cell what restrictions there were and if the doctor tried to order some restrictions joe classification says we don't we don't look at those you don't have our entire file and that officer major summerlin said they only have a psychiatric file they don't know everything we make the decisions on where to place them in the cell and what those restrictions what what and then what does the record reflect about why he was put in a cell by himself when he was alone and they have cell there weren't any other inmates in the cell with him and it's occurred to me i mean if there had been someone else there with them this thing would never ha our psychiatric expert did in fact testify to how for someone with chronic suicidal risk putting them in a suicide resistant cell this very morning and that has been defined as to either sell that hasn't for true princes if it's a one person cell or sometimes it can mean a combination of having someone else in the cell the record evidence here is that they placed him in that cell because he had had previous disciplinary incidents but also regardless of whether he was in that cell or not nothing prevented them from modifying that smoke detector or became sure that he had a suicide blanket either one of which would have saved his life just like if they had made sure as their policy required that the cell window was not covered for minutes on end that would have saved his life because the officer looking straight across from his cell would have seed into it and seen the news in fact that's exactly what had happened ten months before they had seen the news immediately gone and taken it down and saved him and they weren't able to do that because they didn't follow their own policy and what we're saying about the reasonableness of these competitions is this how can we call accommodations not reasonable when they're required so i think we have to find that they were on notice had actual notice of his disability and the need for the accommodations which we say they were and they had to know that the that their management of the nerine was ineffective and the best evidence that it was  ineffective was that every time they put him back in a cell that wasn't suicide resistant and where they didn't give him a suicide blanket he kept trying to tie a news show which is which employee had that discriminatory and it was a combination of jail will say all of these the case i mentioned earlier so today no persons doctors hospital room delano piled mirali of those are cases about intentional discrimination and it so happens that in delano pilots one officer but in paris versus doctors hospital it's a number of doctors that are managing the care of the defamation they give one communication device it doesn't work and then they never try something different so i think even that flask of data stands for the proposition that you don't have to identify one particular person who had all the knowledge under the belt and if that were the case then you probably not attach liability for these kinds of jail and a violation is ever because jails of course do disperse their responsibilities among several layers of employees and i don't think that would be the intended result of the so i'd like to go back to the other three reasonable accommodations we discussed one was chelsea ford's failure to refer to an area into a psychiatric problem immediately after he made a suicidal statement where he said the illuminati is watching me and makes me want to kill myself day she admitted in a deposition she knew he had illness she knew he had committed tried to commit suicide she knew that was a suicidal statement and she knew that he had previously had suicidal ideation she knew also that policy required her to immediately refer him to a psychiatrist we pointed to both jail policy as well as policy for her immediate employer that said she was required so although there may be instances where doctors should not be libeling or needing a reason medical judgment in this instance the jail stripped her of that capacity they said we want to apply your medical judgment but not when it comes to the suicide prevention is to work any time you hear behavior it indicative of a mental health issue jail policy said you must report it right away she admitted that she didn't she had no discretion not to report so there are also not again as we mentioned earlier was that he had been turned loose by the psychiatric and so you know recently how what was the difference in time between when he was turned loose and when she heard these amounts he was sent back to general population on january st and she heard this statement on february th and he killed himself was more willing to think that this really wasn't a problem was a sort of human response that's a fair question your honor policy required her to report that statement for psychiatric follow up because the jail had decided as a policy matter that suicide prevention is too important for those kinds of incorrect judgments it was just too important to make that mistake number one and number two in practice even after dr  had released an area in fact a general population jail staff continue to be responsible to vigilantly observe him face to face and to provide him whatever requirements he needed to make his confinement  it was an on off switch at the jail where the only thing the jail staff to do was referring to a psychiatrist there are some jails like that harris county didn't operate that way harris county said when you're in general population you can have a suicide blanket we can give you more frequent monitoring the reason was because they had had so many suicides they knew how to prevent them and what was effective it didn't happen in this case because they weren't even close thank you i see my time's up are you may please look for it laura back with hedge representing years tell me first i would like to begin by addressing some of the questions that the court had that i think are important for me to address in the st and i like t begin involving is with regard to the intentional discrimination like the court was very good to start who has to show intent here and i want to point out that the two critical areas that have been criticiz dish charges it in made to general population that as with now getting restrictions at all there is no suicide caution and there's no restrictions placed on that individual and the doctor knows man and that's exactly what happened in th health unit and are you saying there's no middle ground you're there in the mental health unit or if you're out in the regular population there's nothing that can be done to deal with a potential suicide threat actually that is something that can be done that if there isn't any indication he jail nurses now know there's an inmate acting in a way that they think maybe he was on the suicidal or some other mental illness they do a night for all to tell the mental health doctor you need to see said he is not over it of suicide and that in this testimony he did not feel that mr hawkins was in harm's way when he said he can go back that he can go back to get his clothing and he can go back to having a monitoring every sixty minutes now what is important here is going back to the presentation they do know that this guy has a history of suicide they see it in the records they don't have inmate in a suicide his mother definitely it is cruel and unusual would be here on a different lawsuit if that were the case because you have to use the least restrictive means necessary and say with regard to suicide smock that is only meant to treated as a medical decision well in this telling if we look at the snapshot in time that's important here which is february th two thousand and fourteen when chelsea ford thought she was the one that made the decision that he didn't need to be seen by anybody else for caution needed to be taken whether it be a suicide related whether it be going down to the mental health clinic whether it be constant observation she did not ring the bell killed liberally did anything he thought she made that decision but he didn't find that she was even deliberately different which i know is even a lesser standard than it and general discrimination which was seventeen minutes before mr hawkins committed suicide there was not a towel covering up and he testified that officer perkins testified if there had been a towel there i would have told him to take it down there wasn't a tow and fortunately for mr hawkins it was too late in that seventy minute time period he had time to kill himself but there's not any evidence that the officers did anything to violate any laws and that's important because it goes back to this intentional discrimination issue on the issue that the war decided the district court found that this was a medical treatment decision by the doctor in chelsea ford that the doctor in discharging without restrictions and without cautions that that was a medical treatment decision and jail staff should be allowed to rely on the judgment of a mental health professional like dr where and they did now with respect to chelsea for he found the same thing that it was her decision her professional she's a licensed professional counselor it was her her her for her professional opinion that he was not suicidal and so when you're looking at how can there be an intent to discriminate against mr hawkins there is no intent there's not even deliberate indifference here the classifications never signed him based on the recommendation of d additionally the idea of suicidality it's not open in obvious that someone is going to kill themselves now in that last year and a half when mr hawkins was in the jail from july two thousand and twelve t next time after that was i believe july rd street where he had stored his pills and he attempted to overdose he went to the hospital for a month and came back to the jail and was under the care of the doctors there until they discharged him finding him to be stable and then again you know january th two thousand and fourteen which is what led to him being in the clinic for those two weeks but the point is that there are going to be inmates in here is county jail that are going to have mental health issues and harris county has an extremely good record for suicide rates in the jails we would prefer to have no suicides that would be the best nobody wants to have suicides in their jail but if you look at the national this is it they are doing really well  in terms of having low numbers based on the number of inmates that go through that chain and that's because those officers are trained that when they see something they do something in this case the officers  if you want to address one of the points you made toward the end again going back to intent there's all these instances not just when they found him and when he did commit suicide but all these other attempts they were the staff repeatedly rescued him attempted to rescue him i mean the final incident they're giving him mental health treatment isn't that intense system was saying he was they were discriminating against him because of his mental issues the descriptive intentional discrimination standard under the ag is just different from what it is under ninet dollars and so that's why i think it's it looks and feels so different it's not about whether they were generally providing him medical treatment or not it's true they were medicating him with antidepressants as well as anti psychotics because he had been diagnosed with psychotic disorder and schizoaffective disorder and they knew he had auditory hallucinations all of those things are true the question is was the failure to make reasonable accommodations did that show evidence of intentional discrimination in the employment context for example of someone who works as i have this disability i need this in combination that's that's not an intentional discrimination claim here the problem is here i'm going under this title that actually doesn't have accommodation language but i guess the courts  question that a failure to make accommodations claim is viable under title two of the eighty eight dollars what the intentional discrimination standard on top of that tells us is that the defendant had to be on notice of the disability and the need for accommodations and what the  circuit case law tells us is how we look at that is did they have information that told them that their management effective methods were ineffective and in this case they did they tried to manage him in ads and without a suicide an attempt to attack and here there was no attempt to adapt and actually chelsea ford is the perfect example of this she treated a suicidal statement that she that she agreed a deposition was suicidal and what she did was she minimized its risk and decided not to report it even though she had no discretion to do so so that's the opposite of the attempt to adapt to say hey it's not working let's make sure we do more for him to prevent a suicide because it's getting more and more frequent that he's trying to kill himself which is in fact with the record show i want to make one point we didn't need to win this case this is a summary judgment motion we just needed to put in enough facts to show that there was a genuine issue of dispute fact and what i what we want to point to this court to was there was ample evidence on each of these six accommodations two of them had nothing to do with medical decisions the district court said so to the towel and the twenty five minute monitoring but the district court said there was no admissible evidence we had admissible evidence based on the jail policies the testimony of their thirty six witnesses and the testimony of dr wecht the and doctor for dr wecht the said this is not my territory i'm not allowed to do anything for inmates in general population i tried to once they told me to step off and so he wasn't able to put any restrictions on the area and there's no dispute in the record about that but even if there was a dispute in the record about that we should get to have a jury look at that evidence wait because it is reasonable that a jury could find for the plaintiff on these issues given the amount of evidence that we could use majerus one last point church with the question you asked about intentional discrimination and we have to identify someone in addition to the cases we pointed out i would just go back to frame versus city of arlington if this is not a municipal liability standard under ninety three dollars and neither is it an individual has the standard under kino was in the control center for ten minutes he admitted i know the policy i'm supposed to be watching inmates at all times he admitted he had been in that he had been in and said before kaino knew that area had tried to kill himself before and he sat there for ten minutes he saw the towel and never asked him to take it down ten minutes can mean life or death when it comes to people who are hanging so we think there are more than enough people in the record based on their own testimonial evidence and the