and in fact the district court in assessing this found that the behavior was willfully ignorant and deplorable but nevertheless found that it didn't state a violation of the a t f a based on the timing of the term degenerative disease general research shows that that disease is passed on generation to generation with real frequency and the employer doesn't want to be saddled with huge statistics we're going to let you go that's correct your honor but in this case i think the linkage is even stronger because there's always going to be some need to show causation and when the employer made it clear pretty clear that the reason it was taking this action was because she was going to go to jail that's exactly right and this case really is that the imminence is unquestionably at thought that she would been allowed to do want to switch the facts on you what would the employer in your view have been allowed to do had she gone on and in fact contra contracted if the employer has a reasonable basis  to that the employee no she does there's it's just she comes back and she test positive what what is the employer able to do at that point in time there's no doubt in my hypothetical ok as you has that if she has it and she's been sent for a individual as medical exam in that case to determine that she in fact does have it somehow some way either in guyana or on the way back to the or upon arrival here a doctor has said she has got it in that case the employer is allowed to have example from an individual would require and to take adverse action is the key factor based on the belief that would require some level of interaction or association that would at least suggest that there was a possibility that miss low could contract the disease not traveling in the future across the continent to the country of gonna do you have called if she called into the office to report to her colleagues what a great time she was having and also said that happened to walk by in a bowl of clinic and that was pretty skill she felt like everything was fine at at that point it's a matter of timing to the extent that the definition of disability has to be met at the time of the alleged adverse action correct or perceived disability  they fired her based on fear current based on fear that mrs low in her travels to go on a west africa during the a bullet crisis may and s e o c initially you've heard much today about imminently but initially it was that she could contract a bowl and then it kind of transformed to would contract the bowl and now it's that she would almost certainly in imminently contract ebola  again the statute itself requires proof of cause so when that adverse action takes place yes it is a matter of timing because it has to be based on an actual or perceived physical or little bit more clear resolution she has a relative of hers from gonna travel to the united states or a friend to visit her she tells a friend at work oh you know my cousin from god i just came over to visit me she's having a great time st time in the united states the employer says who want to take a chance given the sort of work that we do sort of clients that  provide services to you're fired is there a claim i believe there's a potential claim because there she would have a actually let me backtrack a bit there she would at least have a known association with her cousin however whether or not there is a claim turns on whether the court determines that in the association provision the reference to known disability of a person with whom the qualified individual is known to have an association or relationship whether that known disability equates to also a perceived my apologies i didn't mean to go off on the a be under the association no provision unless the court's example is brought under the regarded as problem is they're ok all right so in the courts example under the regarded as pronk then yes i believe there's a potential for a claim because we have an individual who is subjected to an adverse action because the employer believes or perceives her as having a contract to this  hypothetical in this case if you believe that my hypothetical presents a viable a da i believe the difference in the hypotheticals are that at the in the or in your hypothetical the individual may actually meet the requirement of being regarded as having a physical or mental impairment as is required why she hasn't gotten it yet and there's no indication that her relative or friend has it either because it encompasses a perceived impairment as well and that perceived impairment can be mistaken and still be actionable how is my hypothetical different than what happened in this where she's going to go see her relative or friend physical or mental impairment at the time of the adverse action i know but in my hypothetical there's no impairment is perceived as potentially contracting you b she's with people who are in a country that has that if i'm trying i'm having trouble so the distance be two scenarios in the st hypothetical again in that situation which is a regarded as hypothetical the plaintiff or the prospective plaint make a claim that she was discharged because she was regarded as having ebola and she could allege a supporting facts that she was interacting with her cousin she the employer my cousin has ebola that's not my hypothetical my hypothetical is that her cousin a relative doesn't have a bowl of the employee doesn't have a bowl of but the and i certainly don't know how successful it would be but it could be argued that because this individual was associating with her cousin who had been in this region where the ball of virus the ebola virus was raging that by terminating this individual somehow this individual was regarded as having a ball so i think that that is a possibility that  comports with the proof of cause ation requirement under the statute however in the existing case there is no claim by the sea that miss low had a bola at the time of her discharge nor that the company mistakenly perceived her as having a ball at the time of her discharge therefore her discharge could not be based on an actual or perceived impairment that did not exist says that unless the context provides otherwise you words use in the present tense the future as well as the present why does the dictionary the fall the canary default rule not  because context indicates otherwise context again requires proof of an actual or perceived impairment at the time of the adverse action in order and why is that so that's what i'm trying to ask why why is the canary act inappropriate here is that the fault rule because the context of the statute indicates that the dictionaries act the dictionary acts applicability would  not serve the plain text of the statute it would be contrary to the plain stet text of the statute which requires that an individual establish that he or she has been subjected to an action  ed under the a da because of an actual perceived physical or mental impairment not one that may develop in the future for which we don't really know if it would or would develop in that we don't know if miss lowe would come back from ghana if she had thought reinstatement or rehire we don't know what the company would has said wait twenty one days let's see if you develop a fever and welcome back we don't know if the company would has said no way forget it you travelled to guyana we're not hiring you cause you might have a boa we don't know if the company would have said you know what we're short staffed come on back to work this is a very dangerous interpretation of the regarded as probably as well as the  make that type of determination we must look to the plain language of the statute and presume that congress says in the statute what it means to say in the statute the interpretation of that statute fo does not create ambiguous ambiguity the court the thrust of the e e o c is argument is that the statute would be better served as well as congressional intent if we would remediate this unfair act but the fact of the matter is this act does not constitute a violation of the a j which the district court properly concluded  as to if i may briefly address kimberly lowe's council's arguments there is no unconditional or permissive right to intervene in substantially defective litigation you're putting the cart before the horse because you're assuming that the delivery geisha is defective but the intervention decision has to be made before a court decides whether a forward or not right the statute the relevant statute says the person in the in her position well you're telling me that you that a court is supposed to figure out the merits before deciding intervent what i'm saying to the court is that miss love's offered no case law standing for the proposition that the district court duty to rule on her motion to intervene before deciding the facial challenge presented by our client massage envy to the c's underlying litigation whether that be one day after it was filed or sometime within the eight speculates or told the court today that it would be possible that she would make arguments or claims that she wasn't permitted to make however under the supreme court decision an house once the e e o c takes that case the only alternative a perspective plaintive has is to become a plaintiff in intervention that's just the state of the law for  miss low to kid ten perhaps that the denial or the term a nation of her motion to intervene operated as a denial it would be harmless error because ultimately the district court found the e case in which she could intervene the court need only look to what ms lo did and did not do in the record and not engage in speculation as to what she would have done she followed a proposed motion to intervene and proposed complainant intervention asserting only one claim under the a da a regarded as claim and for eight months while that case was pending never sought to amend her motion to intervene to make any new arguments or add sorry about the mishap with the microphone know that's that's exactly right your are the only reason i bring it up is because council said that text of the statute the dictionary action apply but in fact this is exactly the sort of case where employers unfounded concerns of mistake s such as with ghana and with people in ghana most centrally does apply so in fact it's sort of hard to think of a solution where that where the dictionary act would apply were it was more in line really what determines whether or not the dictionary act applies here it's clear that the statute says if you were guarded as having an impairment then you come under the protection the statute so if you regarded as having