answer could have been to another question that he understood was given to him he said in the record that he had no knowledge of any other being they to him and there is a person around isn't there there's other evidence from other witnesses that there was an offer and that he applicant is having a problem understanding the questions because of his hearing problem if he was given a question to read he wouldn't have had a problem hearing the question in the second interview given the courtesy of having questions repeated to him more than more than once or twice in the first interview questions repeated to him three and four chimes again showing nothing was going to him to read and yet even two and went back we addressed the evidence heard the argument of counsel and made a disposition and reported that in a judgment i think the one case that would specifically dispose of these issues on whether or not the why it was prepared fully prepared to proceed without an interpreter edison satisfied its duty of providing reasonable accommodation once it made that offer mr zip thinking when the district court and according to the evidence shows to proceed assume that it's duty had no information or request or facts which put it on notice further accommodation might need to be explored in this particular case i want to point out that at the the request that was made to him at that time and the court mean a correct finding with respect to the legal issues in this case well let me back back up for one moment there was other ample evidence in the record and and the company his or not so in california engaged in the interactive process the courts laid out a roadmap as to what would be required in edison met that requirement he considered mr zip critics request at the end of the first interview which was really in fact only a suggestion that he might have understood the first interview was questions a little better and i had to have read the questions when they showed them to him if you had an interpreter as to inquire this court said that a mere inquiry to his mother even though she was his designated agent purposes of receiving telephone calls and further inquiries about his candidacy was insufficient she told him he didn't need more as a nevertheless i asked him again at the beginning of the skills and job complications that there was no evidence that any decision was made pretextual a there was no evidence that he was required to go through the interview without a trucker he chose to do so on  interview when he's hearing impaired necessarily violates the eighty act that would be subsection v six and be seven section called one twelve and the answer that question in this case is if we require him to do that and we refuse to offer him any of the combination whatsoever then perhaps giving an oral interview we would have a tendency to screen out an individual who has a hearing impairment however if the addressed on appeal in the first instance because it is not an issue at the trial court below the court simply said it's not going to raise or redress that issue wasn't framed by the initial pleadings in the complaint to the employer call his mother yes he did and what for what purpose of the employer call this mother the a to tell her that there was going to be an interview the first interview and the mother responded to they make an attempt in good faith to talk to him in writing or bring an interpreter in so that we can communicate to find out what does he need if they can accommodate that if it's not burdensome for the for the company to do something in that regard either to let him read it to repeat the questions a little bit more or give them an interpreter those were very simple accommodations and they provided none of that have done to accommodate the situation rather than ask them questions that he could not hear or see and then based on those questions evaluate him as to the responses whether he