one job which she was at least really qualified and during those four years m p s below average of thirteen in ministry level positions per month how many of those was she actually interested in she repeatedly said she wasn't interested in demotion however there actually was one position that she did actually express an interest and that would have represented a demotion so the thirteen month really doesn't is not really very relevant here well it's relevant only in the fact that there are obviously were a lot of bacon says that were being what's relevant or is vacancies for which she would have been qualified and interested correct greg there's approximately seven positions that she joined we argue she is qualified which you're on is what's become the central issue of this case is whether physically restraining students who are working in the vicinity of potentially students is an essential function of mr brown's assistant principal position or any other position for which she was at least nearly all that we believe and the record shows that neither is an  or three the function is highly specialized here the district court erred by subjectively and unilaterally determining that physically restraining students is an essential function of mr brown's assistant principal position and other positions where she was at least mentally of any of the other positions where she was at least newly qualified in fact evidence in the record shows the exact opposite is true that evidence shows in the twenty one years m p s employed ms brown she was involved in a student incident once that evidence shows as confrontational manner i had understood counsel that the the bigger problem here was the july twenty eighth two thousand and ten order that she not be in the vicinity of potentially unruly error her doctor in march of two and that was that was the lawyer who didn't have access to the doctor's instructions correct i'm not aware of what he did or knew well that was gordon's response i'll send you the doctor's we've got doctor's instructions you're wrong show me you've got you know us and show me where the doctor is wrong and we'll talk about this i'm looking for evidence that dr smith backed off in those four years from the not being in the vicinity of potentially unruly students sure the next the next occasion would have been in march of two thousand and eleven when he again clarified what he meant and he said that she just can't be in a position where she'd have to subdue a student and then you mentioned earlier in march of and eleven he says the restriction remains in place right where he clarified so you're right i mean that's that's the problem this case is he clarified the numerous occasions what exactly was meant by his restrictions the problem is that even though he's doing that and that w conflict with m p s his apparent belief as to what she is restricted from doing m p s never engage in any sort of interactive process to determine whether or not it's believed was an error despite being not presented with conflicting information on numerous occasions i'm looking at a good march twenty seventh dr smith response the questionnaire the restriction from seven twenty eight ten remains in place right  those restrictions in the document you heard in the record shows he clarified time and time again what exactly he meant that m p s cannot as a matter of practice simply lift words off the page that would conflict with other statements from the suits already in file right correct ok so march twentieth eleven  let's see you told us in seven twenty eight senate town that ms brown should not be in the facility of potentially unruly students this restriction would be permanent unless ms brown has a remarkably good every operation of her left knee and undergoes total knee replacement of the right knee please clarify whether you are lifting this restriction regarding unruly students please also clarify what you mean by avoid student discipline situations ms brown does not believe that she should be in the vicinity of unruly students his response restriction from seven twenty eight ten remains in place where's the factual dispute it says that she can be in the vicinity of potentially on a really stupid i guess the only time that is absolutely one hundred percent clear is with regard to august the twenty fourteen when she's still employed and yes and at that point he says quote i see no reason she could not be around students but again he clarifies as he always has she is cannot be a position where she has to control the students at that's the problem here your honor is that i get the information received over the course of this case would conflict with the idea that and i know you december of zero nine he's saying no student intervention where she was a student in her action in january return in april returned to sedentary work with no student interaction in may i'll grant you he waffles a little bit but by the end of july it's not in the vicinity of potentially unruly students which i think we'd all agree describes all students right hypothetically to describe any person right one could become unruly the fourth yeah and that's that's what the doctor saying in the employer has an obligation to respect the doctor's instructions correct that's correct but here it doesn't affect your qualifications for the positions that we're talking about ok because help well about assistant principal will because it's not an essential function to know it's in the child has to be carried out in an environment with potentially unruly students right right but s did not expect her to physically intervene with students so let's let's play out the hypothetical so if she is around students and they become unruly she's already been told we don't expect you to physically intervene with them in fact m p s told her to retreat from them so she can't she's not restricted from being around students generally speaking restricted fats was disaster sent right potentially by julie students yes that that that may have been an exaggeration he maybe he was going too far but that's really between him and the plaintiff isn't it because the employer has to respect those rights and what i'm saying is if there is conflict information that if  physician and says i see no reason she could not be around students it can't just ignore them but that's exactly what it did and that's the problem it can't just put its head in the sand and not engage miss brown and or the doctor in terms of getting a better understanding of what it is despite having that knowledge you know it's twenty fourteen when she's still employed there it refused to reinstate her to her sister principal position i thought she was working for a private school at the time in august twenty four team but when was she working for the private school that was january of for a year and a half for private school during that time ran rikers should express an interest and even apply for multiple vacant positions and was merely denied all of them and so she went outside the district however the relationship continued because after her son ended at the other school m p s reached out and said we need you to come back to your position resign and she immediately expressed an interest to come back and the doctor provided the information and mentioned earlier then had an obligation again to reinstate her to her system principal position now th you be specific about transfers on the title one coordinator position is i believe it's undisputed the third one was crew that there was grade twelve a and she was grade ten right so that would be a promotion correct  actually so there was a lateral move consider a lateral move not a promotion so pay grade itself is not indicative as a record shows of a promotion in this case anything else that would let us say the title one issue you try to learn one coordinator would not be a promotion it would just be actually that the dearth of information in the record in terms of there was no information indicating that it was a promotion or could be considered a promotion this brown did not consider promotion roshi never came up as an issue until after this case was you know how about the g e korean coordinator decision that was explicitly a transfer opportunity for any current administrator including this brown but that can't be right you can't it can't have been not even potentially a promotion for anybody right i'm just tell you what it said in bold on both the job description and on the job posting any other indication that that was not a transfer and seems like a remarkably critical position for a public school system  there's no evidence there's no record actually point to that except for m p s simply just saying it was a promotion and it wasn't worked there are no other facts in the record that would demonstrate that and all that we actually have in the record is the statement in bold it's a transfer opportunity for any current administration that you're sell to use a question about the school who something in particular about the school is it has disruptive people in it is it hard school to deal with or some you know schools differ so much from one place to another and there are some places some schools it would be very common do encounter disruptive students others i suppose you don't have any sure i mean that that's what's what's the issue with this school there was no issue with the school in general it was it was simply a blanket statement like it stayed in those apply to the entirety of m p s every single school every single has a principled position every single position of miss brown expressed an interest in and work like every single time she was brown will certainly restricted from her ability to perform any of the essential functions of her job as an assistant principal that often after that july twenty eighth two thousand and ten medical note came in and i hope the court also noted with that note the doctor was specifically asking that miss brown be removed from her system principal position asking if there was certainly there was some other job maybe that m p s could find which wouldn't require the movement on the standing requirements and the system principal had after that there was the february fourth two thousand and eleven note that came in from her doctor still saying no student discipline issues and again restricting her to fifteen minutes of either standing or walking  in terms of restrictions and stating that she needed to have elevator access wherever she was now mr gordon on the corner basically for m p s responded with a questionnaire and got the response march sixteenth two thousand july twenty eighth two thousand and ten restrictions just to make sure goals are still in place and the doctor agreed and that was the the march sixteenth two thousand and eleven restrictions those are the last restrictions that were presented to s from miss brown's position until august twenty ninth two thousand and fourteen was you and could i ask you whether the milwaukee public schools is taking the position that a curse and who needs wheelchair or scooter for mobility use he bore unable to work as a principal or assistant principal or for that matter a classroom teacher certainly your honor i think that the record shows that m p s believes if for example miss brown needed a scooter for mobility issues could still perform her job as an assistant principal in fact mr gordon was in the process of having the district purchase miss brown a scooter in the days leading up to the july twenty eight for mrs brown due to having a walk stairs in the school that she was in and so there was a lot of discussion about how to address that but miss brown didn't purchase that on her own and i think mr gordon and attempting to keep her in her job as an assistant principal was looking into purchasing the scooter but but to be clear the schools don't take the position that a person in a wheelchair or scooter is prohibited from working with children certainly in the scooter and that the logic of that analysis would seem to point towards a much broader kind of restriction on people with mobility limitations with the school system i understand your honor all i want to be clear m p s is not taking the position that if you're in a wheelchair that you can't be an assistant principal or be a teacher however in terms of you know i think your point leads to august twenty ninth two thousand and fourteen restrictions where this brown there is a situation where that requires that intervention she was concerned about that and so the wrist the doctor stated that she could be around students but just shouldn't be responsible for monitoring or controlling students where there may be a question that they may become uncontrollable and the doctor suggested accommodation for that was that m p s could have a security guard present to take care of those situations which i'm assuming the doctor meant situations where miss brown is handling discipline scituate situations and that's problematic here because what's been demonstrated from the october two thousand and nine and sent between this round in that second just what happened in in october two thousand and nine that in handling student discipline issues you never know when a student may become a controllable and wired maybe for the student safety or for the assistant principal safety there may need to be some physical control of that student and that's what had to happen when that team in the august twenty ninth two thousand and fourteen restrictions m p s analyzed that but determined she still would not be able to perform her duties because she would not be excused from handling student discipline issues just because a student is brought to her office it's been demonstrated is a can't be questioned she can still be injured she may still have to intervene  p s position is that she was not qualified to be able to perform the job of the system principal even with the august twenty ninth two thousand and fourteen restrictions the other point i want to make is that there about that i think the record shows that those are clearly promotions and i do have a question about the g green crew or meter position what exactly evidence do we have in the record on this is do we have an affidavit or testimony from that would require some travel something much broader than the school and that's correct and the g e position at the time that was april two thousand and eleven when that position was being interviewed for like this brown expressed interest in that position her restrictions with individuals and so i think it was only maybe fifty percent maybe in the office but other than that she had to be on her feet and there was going to be the mobility issues are quite a concern also dealing with some high finance is a re twenty million dollars grant provided by g e which you know it was very highly important to the school district the successful implementation of this grant on the person in this position was going to be  monitoring that amount of money you know looking just like why and how to improve math and sciences for for the students and just working at a level that is farmyard and opening up other opportunities that we would argue for miss brown that wouldn't have been available to anybody and i know you say it's a promotion for anybody minutes advertises a transfer for anybody i don't think we have information about greater pay do we you know record in order that you have a finding that she meets the minimal qualifications for the job we do have evidence in the record that the person ended up getting the job ended up earning more money than this brown eighty four thousand roughly are approximately what it was eighty four thousand so it's transferring and and that really goes to the heart of the grant money is to distribute the money to improve matters for the school district not to go to paying somebody a lot more money to minister this money you know it was advertised as a transfer opportunity in terms of your salary is going to stay the same but it's important to look at what the duties are for that position to determine really is this a promotion is this a better job for her or is it really a lateral move and i  don't think you should just look at money on that point though she would have received approximately fourteen thousand a little over fourteen thousand more and pay had she gotten the job simply for going from a top ten month a year job as an assistant principal to then working twelve months in this condition but i didn't you know i brought that up but i didn't focus on it because i do think it's very important to look at the qualifications  there were two other positions that were discussed in the briefing after the aug twenty ninth two thousand and fourteen restrictions kamen m p s then performed another job search to see if there were any open positions lateral these two positions and determine she wasn't qualified if she was qualified it wouldn't have mattered in that sense because an m p s one of offered it to her eyes very quickly i think the most important thing was stated right at the end of m p s is argument there that it determined that she was not medically qualified for those positions and that again is the heart of the issue of this case there is no interactive process respect any of these german ever talking to miss brown or without speaking to miss brown stocks or whether or not she was actually qualified for any of these positions with or without the combination are just a couple of points real quickly your honour's