the honorable judges of the united states court of appeals in for the seven judicial circuit hear ye hear ye hear ye all persons having dismissed before this honorable court our minister draw near and give their attention as the court is not fitting god save the united states and this ok think of the district court was correct and finding that the seat ins representative can bring an employment discrimination claim and be half in a state the court cited collins versus diligent woodridge ninety the most analogous case cited by the district court is it's been a man twenty five nd five hundred and sixty six and which the court found that the personal representative of a deceased employee may have stand receive a title seven claim but discovery was required to determine whether the forty five dollars day time period was equitably told and this is exactly what we are asking the court to do here today the court should remain and the case to the district court so that a determination chandon made as to whether the forty five day time period was equitably told two hundred and forty two thousand and twelve alice perkins die at work after suffering a heart attack what we did not know until december two thousand and twelve which is when dorothy received the supervisor statement is that alice had an altercation with two other workers that day alice a supervisor asked her to go to room one hundred and eighty eight while he spoke with the other two workers about the zero tolerance policy and as number forty three page eighty six of ninety nine according to a report by dr richard j carroll this walk would have been approximately two hundred and dr carroll says work certainly walking any distance with chest pains and shortness of breath would not have been advantageous and may have contributed to her death we contend that dorothy perkins adequately played a cause of action for failure to accommodate under the rehabilitation act and the original complaint and pay at paragraph eleven th twenty she also states the u s postal service they'll to follow a course of formal mandatory proceedings particularly as it relates to the agency's failure to provide reasonable combination which led to my moms that u s the stock at number thirty seven dollars we believe that given miss perkins pro se so that is the district court should have considered her to have pled to accommodate a claim under the rehabilitation acts in order to  this cause of action the plaintiff must allege one she has a qualified individual with a disability to the employer was aware her disability and three the employer built to accommodate her disability and this is guarded her st twenty one f th thirty one we believe that mr perkins has played all of these elements she pled that alice her mother was a qualified individual with a disability by attaching the medical forms showing that alice had psychological issues and chronic asthma documents show that alice was limited in the major like that cities of reading and walking because alice died while she was working at the port could and should have inferred that alice was qualified individual and she was dorothy feld to request the e e o c counseling within forty five days after her mother's that we contend it's because the defendant never produce required reports that would have been orms her is that what happens when that day so we didn't know what happened until she got the supervisor's report sometime late and we're kind of piecing together still because she's never received the documents that she thought she was going to receive as to why i d miss you're to accommodate and which we are alleging her death resulted from didn't happen until she die so she could not have made the request for the e e o c counselling so we are contending that alice pled that her mom was a qualified individual with a disability she produced documents showing that she was limited in the major life activities of reading and the postal service argues that the documents mr perkins was requesting were workers workers compensation documents and therefore not relevant we contend that this argument was out with is without merit there were no other documents that would have provided information to ms perkins there was no e o p report that they were required to produce so we're contending that this was the only way that they could have gotten this information regarding defendant's argument that perkins bill to amend or bill to play the alice was an otherwise qualified individual with a disability and that she did not plead that there were essential functions of completed or someone can bring a claim under the rehabilitation act having to failed to take a step up and be able to take it timely this claim is art and this court can and should affirm the district court on that simple ground decide need to reach the several other reasons that this case also i can and should be dismissed and in the briefing and also in the arguments today ms perkins claims she had a certain report says workers compensation reports in order to know about the alleged discrimination that her mother faced and to succeed on that of course she would be to either show that she is due diligence to attend to obtain that information that it was necessary for argument here that she presents is that she needed those reports to be able to awaken to the possibility that her mother may have had a claim and yet she pursued that claim without receiving the support so the argument fails on its face she didn't need to engage in some sort of due diligence to present the underlying facts because she presented them st in a complaint in this court's those the underlying facts in that complaint appear in the amended complaint but then at the rehabilitation  led below but in any event even at that moment this perkins had already communicated to her daughter and according to her daughter to a union representative of harassment that dorothy perkins allege was the foundation of this claim because the council today makes the distinction between a for rason a claim and a failure to accommodate a claim but before the district court the cannot just recite that she was discriminated against that she was not accommodate if that does not meet the living standard i also like to respond to the  exhaust and as is apparent from the fact that she filed a complaint with the same facts fifty eight days before she initiated the counseling is not a curable and if there are no questions from the court simply has apply equitable talling when a plane of exercising to diligence cannot within the statutory period attain the information necessary to realize she has a claim or when the been iowan within the statutory period we are considering that that's one in three exist that ms perkins exercise due diligence and requesting the necessary information but it was not provided she complains of this from the very original pleading which she when she was pro se and that by failing to provide this information the defendant actually prevented her from either lying regarding the argument that counsel that she was appointed counsel she the counsel never drafted a single creating in this case and never tried to correct any of the pleadings that mrs perkins had filed so essentially she acted and was treated pro se throughout this p so regarding the argument that that she had pled pled the same thing earlier in the complaint your honor or earlier in this procedure and therefore she didn't need any other information i think what counsel is relying on or is going to is a harassment issues and that is a discreet act in a separate