that she wants she also she's a doctor then she has certain work restrictions she presents not to cosco they conclude that whether she works high five months pregnant going to continue to work work restrictive or i was so mentored by her position i was sure a position was more qualified a term a she could go back to work and now that costco released her to go back to as i read the district court opinion there was a finding that she was on fully paid leave and in trying to calculate that to determine whether that's accurate or not it seems to me that she was on leave for up to thirty seven weeks but was paid for maybe twenty six of those weeks is that how you see it her answer that maybe she had up to eleven weeks of unpaid leave whether you are saying it's it was some kind it's a pain and suffering theory what are you saying damages is always part of a lawsuit it should be foremost in your mind t judgment the marital restrictions placed upon her by the doctor whose medical restrictions were compatible with the essential conditions of the job or your device and introduce yourself on the record  and i here to speak for defendant epically costco wholesale intent she actually did not suffer any adverse material adverse consequences as a result of her being placed on the leave of absence due to the fact that her own doctor when he filled out the job restriction form analysis placed a number of restrictions on her which are essential wear and are essential council brother council says that they were those were not essential functions the ability to or for the requirement that she be able to lift those weights so how do we determine because the job description is saying that that the job description itself may be one thing but that her her duties in fact did not require this manual labor and that and the question presents does that present a genuine issue of material fact as to what her job duties actually work we understand that it does not your honor because it is clearly spelled out that she had to perform those essential duties and she saying that she didn't that she she saying that she did not have to perform those duties as part of her job regardless of order job description said that she  fact did not have to perform those functions i don't believe that she in fact testified to that fact and that was not be what is your understanding of her testimony about her job responsibilities he said that she never said that she didn't have to lift and lift she she actually admitted that those were part of her job functions did she request an accommodation with respect to the lifting requirement no she did not so i take it from that answer that there was never an interactive process about that point between her and the company because she didn't ask that is correct there was an interactive process in when she met with her manager and asked for the temporary hourly accommodation of only working daytime ships and that was granted by mr birger on subsequently she came to him and she says she was having some difficulties so at that point mr byrd you're on and the company gave her the form for her doctor to fill out a result of her own doctors restrictions is what led to her being placed on a leave of absence because it was no secret did she did she request an a accommodation with respect to the lifting at that point no sir she was fully paid he says this is not this is not about money or not primarily about money he says she wanted to continue working she she did not want she did not want to be put out lead she the the work schedule arose under unum and she was she's out for the st week she gets her full pay paid by the company then she has to file with unum which is an insurance company fully paid by the employer and for the st thirteen weeks she has one hundred percent salary for the subsequent thirteen weeks she gets sixty percent of herself fully paid under costco's policies but she really not get her total salary ok at some point but lets not sounds like an adverse employment action she she leave fully compensate her if she had been allowed to continue to work no she was not allowed to continue to work she was not allowed to continue to work because of the restrictions imposed on her by her all physician this was not this these were not classical imposed restrictions yes but you do acknowledge that there was an adverse employment action right we don't have to worry about that issue no i would say that that in effect is not it in and of itself an adverse employment action your honor because an employee that is has some sort of either a b a restrictions or issues she does not get the position that she wants there's plenty of court cases by this circuit and by our district that the position that the employee once must not just is not automatically given to her the also there were no other vacant positions it as the district court held she points out of the several unknown undisclosed employees who allegedly received similar or better treatment but she could and or state their names and they could call them mystery employees she was never able to say that someone similarly was treated better than she was what the job description might be she could perform the essential functions of the job and there was some testimony or some acknowledgement from a supervisor that that was true and so when the company europe because it really is not a dispute in that respect whether the employee says i can perform the job but if imposes restrictions on her ability to perform essential functions of the job that should end the question and there were a number of essential functions of the job she could not perform and they have been well outlined in the exhibit and and her deposition it will be exhibit two to her deposition anything further counsel from our port from our point the only other point that i would make your honor is that the evidence of absence of discrimination is the fact that her her total complete leave ended just way beyond september th because she suffered some other unrelated pregnancy issues she had the global operation she was granted she asked for leaves she was granted such leaves and where she was finally given a clean bill of health by her doctors she returned to her position at the same salary the same seniority suffered no real reduction in pay and as a result and in top of that on top of that she received a salary increase back in her position