well there's there's two responses to that even if it's a clarification the city still wins because it only clarifies that sexual harassment claims can be brought under to one or two way or to one or two d it does not say that in general assembly should do it as set forth kind of the second certified question not this court because what happened when the general suddenly for the quote clarified that sexual harassment claims can be brought under to want to it what they did is that they expanded the scope of a sexual harassment claim to include harassment based on opposite or say sets into moonstruck liability for any supervisory sexual harassment and to immunity in the statue and here there is going to during the general assembly specifically only extended the cause of action for harassment to sax if we want to correct that we i think that's an unjust was all the appeal is to the general suddenly and not to this court there's the commission in its rulings its policy statements decisions have any effect on how we should interpret the statute i think there has to be expressed authorization for so for example the commission has set forth its definition of what a reasonable accommodation duty is if there is no go today and the legislation doesn't respond to it what do we do with it i don't think that they did that first of all i think that what they did is to say bad that as bill moyers has said is that the  many religious and the fifth district said and then this and that that is part of the violation under the discrimination in the terms privileges or conditions of employment in the fifth district said no there are question about the third certified question you say if yes should this court modify or reject rules prior holdings if the answer is yes did would we not modify is there anything factual issue relative to whether or not the plaintiff complied with the policy requirements or the  honest apparently i've been told that the investigator who was assigned on this case was and became ill and was unable to compete again by situation during that time and the department does have a very large caseload and that resulted in my presentation i would just like i would request this court keep in mind that the main issue here is what is the legislature's intent once that question is answered all of that answers will flow from that so  discrimination claim based on the terms of privileges and conditions of employment is in fact a claim because that's what the plain language of to one of a sats now defendant would have this part believe that because of the enactment into one of two deed that illustrates th legislature did not intend for disability discrimination based on the terms privileges and been conditioned of employment to actually be a claim and dependency exists it illustrates that these statute is ambiguous legislature at the time the legislature enacted to want to deal with the issue was whether they're there or whether same sex and males were being covered under the act and the legislature determined that you know she wanted to do it the language that is written the company is employer not just during it that way we want to have that included males and same sex individuals under that coverage so the legislature wasn't seeking to eradicate or undermine other types of harassment or hostile work environment claims they wanted to make sure that no one was being left out so that's what i and the same can be said for two hundred two jag with regards to the amendment at the beginning of last year on providing for pregnancy reasonable accommodation protections as your honour's may know cases have held that pregnancy is not considered a disability and because of that employers are not being or not providing reasonable accommodations department employees the legislature didn't like that that's why they acted to want to jay to clarify that to send a lo message player is in the courts to let them know that this is not ok we need coverage for reasonable combinations for apartment employees and that's why the legislature and i wanted those two amendments because there was legislature did that based on the current language in carved out two additional specific areas why would you have done that for this area if indeed it was to be included the reason being is because the discriminate on the basis of disability in the terms privileges and conditions of employment and as your own or something the case law that you cited the term privileging condition of employment means can be your work environment and the cases we cited illustrate the fact that an employee needs to be free from a hostile work environment because that constitutes their term privilege and condition if that is the that we are calling and it meant that they were available for money to testify as to the good character of whomever was willing to pay for them and normally when you say something like we raise a strong and then knock him down he creates this entity this individual this thing this principle calls it something that it isn't according to you and then proceeds to attack him on the basis that it has no real viability in the law and instead of saying he's a he's basically created a straw man and is attempting to knock it down or as some other people say raised a red herring you're arguing that we haven't factually the cause of action we really don't need to answer this question in the affirmative or the negative because really it's a semantical exercise and if what we're supposed to be doing is determining whether or not this litigation is terminated quickly or not we should be terminated whether  or your complaint states a cause of action in discrimination and if it does then who cares whether we should or shouldn't call it sexual harassment or pardon me disability or harassment and it's it's literally creating a reason a straw man and now deciding whether or not we should allow this straw man to exist when you say i don't care whether he exists or not my pieces for relief is discrimination based  the accommodation and the what appears to be some contention regarding whether or not the plaintiff made the proper request under  section or the administrators regulations for the department twenty five hundred dollars four hundred specifically provides that an employee is typically the one that initiates the request and good case law we cited to in our brief illustrates the request can be for anything it just says that you know they're putting the employer i notice that an accommodation is needed the plaintiff doesn't have to specifically a e what type of accommodation because that is a big that to be determined through the interactive process and the type of accommodation that is going to result will be dependent on a number of factors whether  if it's cost effective for the employer whether the employer can provide it there's a lot of things that would be taking into consideration the book the problem i have with what you just stated when you said the  employee to make a complaint pursuant to the policy all they have to do is report it to their supervisor that either and that combination is needed or that they're being subjected to harassment that is exactly the same to did here still factually speaking your honor  pursuant to the policy even though maybe her state of mind wasn't that she was reporting percentage of the policy at the end of the day that's exactly what she did still refer it splitting hairs here about wh she has to prove that she requested an accommodation and then she has to prove that the employer failed to participate in the interactive process with regards to her requ and then she has to prove as well that she that the failure to provide her it must cost her some sort of harm you mean your failure to give you an accommodation may i briefly wrap up your honor yes ok just curious summarize that this entire proceedings here are we believe that the legislative intent is clear up with regards to the first second and th iction here with not necessarily in all the counts ye