testimony at trial with anyone with personal knowledge of the reasons for the terminations none of the other witnesses that testified forgive the debt at trial were the decision maker there were none of the others they did not hold the decision maker quite different than federal law there is no same action defense that is critical it's long as they do one illegal reason infects the decision making process under washington a lot that is discrimination as a matter of law and so you can't run away from your illegal reason saying we choose not to rely on the actual illegal reason we relied on second your honor there was they didn't like this has nothing to do with the fact just the fact that she said the f word there was plenty of evidence that lots of other people use the f word they protested this as a workplace violence case that this was someone who was going to be a violent person in the workplace if you have is not obviously we all want to protect against violence in the workpla was caused by a disability and the law is very clear in this circuit and the ninth circuit that kind of misconduct caused by a disability is treated legally at the scene as a disability and not as a say we follow that approach so when you're dealing with a disabled employee you can't treat them the same as any other person the u s supreme court in barnett said there aren't that disabled employees get to violate certain rules that other people are held that really be different from your clients position because the roads it's really not in that sense controllable whereas in your client's case there's a shift in medication that's at issue and therefore medication was part of her treatment for bipolar condition this is part of what happens with disabling conditions you get me training you get medicated what happened on july eleventh is unfortunately what happens with bipolar employee is sometimes and it's particularly likely when there's a shift in medication it's not her fault that the earlier medication didn't work and so a general insubordination policy could not or cannot be applied to with is a person whose conduct that violates the particular are highly stigmatized and the very overreaction of these employees was time to the fact that they knew that she had been hospitalized again and they were told is in violation of my our client's right to disability privacy and the plaintiffs that you should have given the undo hardship instruction on with reasonable accommodation but you only got half the story and the court of appeals of that's right even though it's technically perhaps an affirmative defense it only gave half the story that's what we have here hardship instruction compound the lack of direct threat instruction in allow the jury to find that as long as needs presence in the workplace opposed to undo hardship the company could legitimately terminator employee unless a direct threat is shown it was not shown here none of the evidence we believe even taken in the light most favorable shows a direct threat and that's why the should  provision of washington line is the kind that resulting from a disability is part of the disability and not law that's right it's not supported by the law along our state is that if someone that's under the rover changed and it's at holes that someone who is perceived to have misbehaved and violation of the workplace violence party can be terminated even if they claim that their misconduct is based on a disability this case is very similar to the once the answer is the jury could permissibly do it that's a point at which an instruction is given that sort of sets the framework i've always thought about jury instructions as creating trying to let us work on which opposing counsel come out their came to you with that well that's a very good rhetorical question and the answer is when the law requires that we do things that we mean i prefer to do and that's just the way our world works you know we have