his essential functions if he's given their accommodation give advantage instruction lacks any instruction to the jury to make a causal connection between the reasonable combination and anything that rd element of the instructions here  those took a causal connection because that's where the plaintiffs have the burden to communicate to the employer that he wants this accommodation and he wants it because of his disability and because of his disability causal because it's not relating to what the reason accommodation is trying to accomplish the fact that the employee here seeking it because of his disability isn't the same thing of saying that the accommodation is is either don't i don't see any material difference between those two formulations so even though i think that there may be some merit to the legal position that you are going i have a lot of difficulty with seen how i was that any different from saying that the plaintiff needed the accommodation in order to perform the functions of his job especially against  discussed before the jury which was the only one they had before right but yes you're you're correct you didn't argue that he needed it in order to perform is essential job functions are still very needed the accommodation that's correct  while and so doesn't deal with cars a son that's where they stop in need then you object to so you will need is not right because it's about the wrong thing it's needing for essential job functions which is a mistake at which was too good surely that they should reject your argument because you were arguing needed to perform your job functions which was not the argument you were making but it is the argument the instruction seems to require that the pattern instruction which comes directly from this circuit precedent and the e e o c regulations means the same thing as start from a challenging than it would be erroneous but i'm not going to iraq yes i don't think the court has to go there because i think e believe that the district court committed was not giving instruction and we requested regarding the interactive process in this case the district court found evidence that  o'reilly breached its interactive process obligations and the interactive process is critical to the implementation of the statute because when an employee comes forward and ask for an accommodation if the employer just sits on its hand this instruction that we were questor be given because otherwise the employee on his bed accommodate claims stop with the accommodation requested and plants address any of the problems which the employer then brings up during nine hours a day five days a week except on those occasions when he called the company that he was up to work more that hears fundamentally inconsistent with an essential function wasn't the purpose of the question the instruction was simply to draw the jurors karajan the fact that the existence of a disability without any connection between that disability and  million here's a little bit mushy frankly and it doesn't necessarily mean that mr bell absolutely had a good thing couldn't do his job without the combination he requested it could has to be complete in the sense that it not only opposes what the district court is doing but explains why but the district court is doing is wrong and how it can be fixed and whatever you want just be a priority for  right and my suggestion is that good is a middle ground between good meeting with as i believe a correct clarification which i offered and leaving out that correct clarification and really any silent about it and that's what the absolutely understood on this record and the coverage even found in connection with a motion for summary judgment that the availability that i've just described was in the central point of mr bell's job  district court over whether mr bell could prove that he was a qualified individual all of the out of the district court rejected that argument rightly made all the evidence that was presented at summ judgment that the court relied on to reject that was presented at trial so i think the same result should occur here and i because on the economy are going to go through all of that evidence but it's in the record from the summary judgment briefing in the trial and i think the the other point