sorenson versus campbell county school district eighteen dash eight zero one counsel would you make your parents  michelle sorenson spent her living area an elementary school education all the very first grade year in south dakota in the campbell county school district principally in special ed class became an important employee with the school district dealing with very complex programs to track to hundreds and hundreds of students to set up school year programs classes without any quite frankly without a college degree without the initial any formal training she became a this computer analyst for the the ago one with everything else that she had to deal with in life she was diagnosed with having a mass she was diagnosed with that didn't affect her very much visually and she kept right on working for the school district with as h progressed and developed and created more and more issues and difficulties for her to where ultimately she got to where in more recent years as  this case evolved in as this is the case is here on summary judgment from the district court in wyoming in the judge's order listed in that order some of the things he suffers from this is progress he suffers from now or headaches double vision fatigue body aches difficulty concentrating memory loss difficulty writing tremors appears solely on information that was not considered my the district court because in sorenson was pro se a summary judgment stage and she sought to introduce all  you're asking us to consider information the district court did not consider i don't understand how we can get there and that seems to be the case well see that's that's only part of it your  disks and i'm i find that some patients about the discovery confusing in the briefs but the fact is apparently she submitted some just but that doesn't make any difference in terms of what i'm asking is here's a district court didn't appendix which of itself has has affidavits and letters of principles and of even the assistant superintendent in in the the record that was before the district court there are hundreds of pages there are additional hundreds and hundreds in that supplemental appendix but there are hundreds of pages of information there is  in the appendix in the record before the district court and i'm knowledge that's really issue here i think it was created in large part because of what the district court allowed of these other attorneys and what they required of this speaking of larry steiger who is a principal at this affidavit is before this part of the record of the district court district court judge had before them says larry steiger described the position that the high school which would utilize she's prepared their master schedule she dealt with with the very complex and sophisticated programs every year for years on end could i clarify just sure following up on ju is line of questions are is it your position that even if we work you disregard the supplemental and it's in disregard everything that was not before the district court and i affidavits in the letters written by the assistant superintendent multiple principals where every one of them basically says that these and this issue is principally five years the last five years of  work where the school because i'm for asking for accommodations because of the difficulties that's what the need for the disease progressed she asked for various accommodations not because she knew the n d a particularly b words they discriminated against her because of her disability absolutely so it's not a question of they didn't give her an accommodation it's a question of they treated her less favorably because she was the disabled person they want to part of the record and that they've been brought up by judge alan there is one thing she asked for because she was experienced with or be training to staff around her on how to deal with made it very clear that during that five year period she continued to work as a can a computer system analysts there is and even larry steiger says and this is before the district court that he asked that she put back on her salary back into her salaried position because he wasn't being paid properly for what she did i guess what i'm trying to get at is at a certain point in she request as some sort of change of position in accommodation because she couldn't do what she was never your own or never she clearly makes it in in fact the h r department the head of h r said he never even talked to her as they moved her back there what she wanted me to reframe it a different way then she never stopped doing work as a computer systems analyst is there any reason we're on the record is there a basis to infer that her continued duties as a computer systems analyst were due to discriminatory intent against her because of her disability we're not saying her duties know she could handle that job and tell us she had forgotten to a point she could no longer handle it the discrimination alleging anything with respect to a denial of the time of the nation i mean if if it's if you're alleging that she she was doing one job but and being paid for one job and doing another job which i think is what you're alleging where is the evidence that they they didn't pay her for the job she was doing because of her disability now that there was some animists well because of her very disability and i see my job was up let me answer you and your question because of her disability they made the move but the school itself determined that they were going to make that move they were going to change your title will never change to work and they were going to change your pay and that continued for five years even to the point of of having her work at home for half of the time and she actually work more than half a home for her last several years on school computers that they put there because of the work you did as a computer systems analyst and claimed he was only a part time employee and all of this was a result of because of her disability because a friend ability to if this hadn't happened to finance with never come up she would have kept working right where she was doing exactly what they wanted it was because of her disability they began to make these changes given an order that said it was without prejudice they could refile a motion they never refile the motion as it sits today the order is the supplemental record is denied and they never refile motions that's where iraq eight hundred twenty four pages of documents some supplemental indexed many of which we've never seen which we requested in discovery and they claim they didn't have which now suddenly appear in the supplemental records the dis i thought you think after the supplemental record s from you in discovery by i think he did suggest that it did not happen with some of that stuff we've never seen i cited in the record to her deposition where we asked for the stuff from her computer she said well i had to race it because i want to keep pictures of my daughter she had a laptop as an accommodation we gave her a laptop to work at home when she turned it in the whole thing and been a race it wasn't one thing on that laptop didn't happen there were no dist provided to the district court there were no dist provided to me the clerk of court has no record of any district the judges clerk has no record of any of the confusion seems to be because the district court specifically reference plaintiff in this case claims that she said that the information was on the dis the judge and that's what she claims and the judge referred to that claim the judge never saw this nobody did they don't  well if they exist we've never seen the judge referring to it was a summary of the allegations in his order on summary judgment the plain of claims z it was just a summary of what she was claiming and the and basis of that that's why it was in order it wasn't because there was anything in him that he relied upon it was just she claims she submitted information supported by these this and that was just a sentence out of the entire order but that was the reason  poly in this case on basically tells you today that she was demoted and required to continue to perform computer systems and was position and he represented you that she absolutely never represented that she asked for that that simply is not true here's what you will find in the record when her deposition was taken she testified that she asked for that change in position and she testified she did that because she could no longer do the job of the computer system and once she said on the weak link in this office i want to do something where i can contribute paid with the district approves our reschedule says she testified money was not and that was why she did it when she transferred she was given a specific form that says your new position is guidance clerk this is the hourly rate of pay this is what you're going to get she wrote on that form thank you and drew a happy face she testified that about several months after that here's what you do with your honor they were compassionate and sympathetic to her from the time she incurred this horrible disease she came to three administrators and lied to all she said i'm applying for disability through social security and through the district's private carrier i need you to sign up so i can get disability her attorney prepared it he signed it he should know it's in sworn testimony is also in the record where he said you know she lied to me i tried to help her i signed it do you really know what that do even know what the jobs of the computers pesh was analysts are he said how don't have any idea duties of a computer system analysts and the primary job of that position was to prepare a massive state report or over fifteen of the state reports she had together data from all the buildings throughout the district over seventeen locations and she generated these reports and these reports are all in the record the documents are there if you look at pages sixty two through sixty six of buying one and page one zero one and one twenty five through one twenty six of volume one we covered those duties she didn't do them not one of those after the transfer on pages one twenty seven and one twenty eight in order to do that job she had to have system access to computer access to the programs to do that job she testified i didn't have any of that access she couldn't have done  wanted to and she didn't want to which is why she asked for the transfer well we have her deposition testimony that you're alluding to that there's still an affidavit in the record as something to the contrary and i mean you say you're not relying on it well they may be relying on it to generate a dispute a fact and so so it would seem to me that i'm not sure why as a matter of law we undisputed she testified to that let me ask a different question what is as far as your understanding of the records what cases is there to believe that any of these adverse action that occurred were predicated on any sort of discriminatory animus against her because she was able you know our current position there isn't a single thing in the record of any admissible evidence in any of the admissible that was support that conclusion not so and more specifically let's let's assume given all benefit to the appellant that there was a genuine issue of as it relates to her continuing to do duty she was still needed stablish that the reason that that occurred was because of discriminatory animus right absolutely and it's your position there is no evidence to that effect it's our position it's what the district court found it's what the record  shows there were over twelve different accommodations during this period of time that we gave or from providing futons for her lay down on and rest of she was tired one of the biggest ones was letting her work from home then with anybody else work from ensign if you're tired if you're hot if you're uncomfortable if you hurt you can go home you can work from home just turning your time but work from home would give you a laptop they bought her a laptop will her husband asked if she could work part time they met with her she testified it was a mutual agreement she testified that she actually asked him to start that have time position earlier they said ok she wanted a new office of what her her complaint now is seems that this were not timely clane did you ever allege timeliness i mean it's looks like she made the complaint about the demotion four years after th demotion occurred and it looks to me like these were continuing she's that she's alleging that she wasn't paid for a period of years what she should've been paid i don't see an allegation just asking  you're one hundred percent correct it is way late some of us didn't even come up and so she filed a response to our motion for summary judgment for example she made an allusion to i'd like to work from nine to eleven month contract there's nothing in or around my point is i believe the e e o c filing discriminatory was within the hundred eighty days of the date of her that they write but her actions her what she's complaining of go back several years correct i don't  except for the new claims we did raise that just to the judge wasn't filed as a separate basis but it was pointed out that the transfer from this computer systems analyst to in two thousand and eight and she started bringing that up and that was you know five years previous she testified every commendation she asked for she was given she testified that there was no accommodation that would have allowed her to do her job she gave her doctor's records and her own f m l a statements and she couldn't even apply for  long term disability without proving she couldn't work so when they changed so she asked for a meeting in february of two thousand and thirteen because she could no longer work that's the testimony i could no longer work i asked for this me the meeting once again the reaction of the administration ok you know what we'll take away the scheduling duties we can find somebody else to do it she was making huge mistakes at this point anyway she acknowledges that  you won't have access to that they didn't take away access to any of the other computer programs then invited her to come back and work then bided her to train her replacement she testified well how can you come back when you're throwing up and sick a great point and at certain points you can she couldn't come back and she was going to do or long term disability claim right mutually exclusive it's one or the other you have to be unable to work even apply for long term the story she testified she got every benefit she was entitled to there is in the record at page sixty six sixty two through sixty six i went through that guidance and through position point by point essential function by central function she testified that's what she did so to say she wasn't doing that job is just clearly unsupported by the record they've been over backwards a month before she told him she was done she wrote a letter an e mail to her principal st thank you she guys have been so good to me if it weren't for how well you've taken care of me my disease i've been washing and thence she tells her doctor when i met with them i resigned she tells him i'll never come back to work her doctors tell him she'll never be able to return to work she applies for a long term disability a tri color when are all over leaves exhausted are submit your resignation they get her to answer the phone they can't get her to return phone calls and they did finally take it as a resignation the board because there was nothing left she wasn't working she wasn't coming to work and said she never would her husband then calls and says she didn't resign and their response well you gave us all this information should never work again if that's