you have deleted those from the record in this case for purposes of simplicity you do no favor i appreciate that now judge and just for the record if i could just reserve three minutes  chief was that this was very straightforward and i wanted to keep it very straightforward for the court you know if you look at my brief you see that judge design of holding and findings with respect to reasonable  dation are on one page and you turn the next page and there is my client's attested facts right to the contrary and that is plain error i mean this was a because we are and may very well be made against you and if we do that there is no issue there well your honor if it's made against me then it's going to i would respectfully submit that it's going to have to be made against the a police on their motion papers because the proofs of the defendant on a summary judgment motion and you have to provide a way of affidavit testimony whatever it is that would meet that now presumably there are several volumes of deposition transcripts and sworn documents that would have done that but instead we have a certification that doesn't doesn't fit so i think what they filed is of a different character it may be of a different character and i and i this is not lost on me but if you look at the strict language of the rule that is rule of federal civil procedure fifty sixty what it says that for the moving party if they are going to be utilizing any documents they have to do it by affidavit where the documents are are tested  certified to be true so it's the same language which brings in the the the statute the twenty eight seven hundred forty six language which talks about substantially in this form and that's where i would urge the court to go if you which is in wide use throughout the state in new jersey in the state courts and i'm sure that that's not lost on this court they point out that some district courts have have held that this insufficient this form and in fact the rule the language of the statute used substantially in this form let me ask a question in your motion before the the district court you filed the certification did you file the other so the district court found that you had not created a genuine issue of material fact tell me exactly how you did because we have the defendant saying we accommodated her we had someone to assist her we should point out errors we did this the other thing what is it your client needed that wasn't done my client had my client had two letters from her treating physicians that detailed in detail and i was you got to remember that i was there at that tell us what they say they say that she did is self it's on page page twenty seven of my brief she needed reduce stress self paced we do stress they gave her a person to point out what was wrong they that's not correct what they did was they took robin snyder who was who's her supervisor and what rob schneider did was at the end of each day made copies of the errors that mary beth i get you you can't say reduce stress as an accommodation what is it specifically that you want to do you want her placed in a cubicle that was separate from others did you want her to be i mean accommodations meaning in the workplace there is something that physically or you know maybe temporarily can be done to accommodate a particular disability or reduce stress just doesn't do it what is it would have helped her as well  didn't do what for instance they wanted i'll give you a very concrete example she needed to see her doctors on a bi weekly basis they did not allow her to see her doctor on a by the basis when she went to go see her  record that is it's in heards it's in her certification it's in her certification and it's also in you know if i if i could go back as my problem is that i have my brief in drafting the brief was it was very straightforward to me that the judge had made findings of fact which were contrary to what she had set forth in her statements and her statements were cooperated by additional evidence that were if you if you if but in my brief you'll see that my form of briefing is that i put my citations in bold you would c c also and it would be citations to an exhibit which we've used part of the appendix that i put in place but i didn't believe that those were necessary for purposes of this appeal and the reason why was because in and of itself her statements create the genuine issue of material fa doctor on a bi weekly correct although the doctors said that she should do this that's correct what other that and that what they did was they said they actually when she went to go see her doctor and she got a note from her doctor and brought it to her they disciplined her additionally they would should they wanted a clear written instructions with her verbal confirmation pardon me clear written instructions with a verbal confirmation i'm sorry judge i didn't hear which said how to do our job on specifics with respect to certain things remember what she was suffering from was the cognitive impairment as a result of the stroke which came as a result of the non treated being aids and she was having a difficult time with that extra time to complete assigned tasks peer review to point out mistakes flexible work schedule so she can visit her physicians for treatment types of things that might be on reasonable certain situations it might be unreasonable in certain situations it would not be unreasonable in this situation you would deal with where where why and where did we find that in the that she was why why would it not be unreasonable in this situation to permit her to work in a way that didn't conform to the generally established work schedule or employee it's in her is burned complained about that specific point and in her complaint implicit within her complaint was the notion that it could have been complied with there you know that pretty serious but are you absolutely certain that they did not accommodate they disciplined her they disciplined her josh i understand but the question is are you certain that they would not let her see her doctor at all they did not let her see her doctor when she went to go see her doctor she brought back a doctor's note and they disciplined her i don't know if they disappear for going to a doctor for something else but the point is you say they had to accommodate her if this is the doctor and they refused to accommodate the request was a flexible work schedule so she could visit her physicians for treatment that was the request from the last person and there was there were other things i mean for instance the buddying up which they claim was done this was not a buddying up where ms schneider was sitting down with mary beth at the end of the day saying mary beth here this is what's happening what it was what actually happened was that at the end of the day she would make a copy of the mistake that mary beth's had mary beth had made during the course of the day and she took those copies did not discuss them with mary beth and mary beth as testified to this brought those mistakes to inference is that my client is entitled to give rise to this idea is that when they found out that she had hiv and aids they decided for whatever reason that she needed to she could not work there any longer so what they did was they created a situation where they determined they figured in speaking to the department of personnel in freehold that they could use graduated discipline and they attempted to try to create these events and if you look at what those events were they were really nothing i mean they were making arguments they were they were complaining to her complaining about her and she was denying  see denies that she she just wish it was her job to open the confidential it was her job to distribute the mail that was her job at that time she was opening and this is what her her testimony is at that time she was opening the mail she saw a memo from personnel to dine marybeth the nine days that it was in a confidential ambled up mary best saw that the memo saw that it was about her it was about and that it was an allegation that she had harassed one of her coworkers by making a demographer a comment about the way the way the coworker dressed she saw this memo she made a photocopy of a memo she came back to her cubicle she was talking to her mother the employee who was on the other side of the cue ball cubicle and at this point i mean she was absolutely isolated in the workplace the employee on the other side heard her talking about something went reported to ms van dyne schneider mission either came up to her said give it to me she says i don't have it i only kept the copy they took the copy from her so she made a photocopy she took the copy from her and then rifled through a stack of ample up several marybeth a file cabinet next to mary beth's desk found one that said confidential and said this is the folder that's what mary beth says happened  as to what the plaintiff how in this instance requested can be found in our thirty six or thirty seven those are the two documents that we finally received after a long series of request plaintiff to provide us with information concerning what accommodations she wanted in a shorthand fashion what she requested through her physicians as a result of what they claim at that point time were conditions associated with lupus basically that she needed a self paced workload she should be able to make phone calls for emotional support something concerning positive reinforcement feedback patients longer more frequent breaks and the ability to stand to alleviate leg cramps clear instructions with verbal confirmation of her duties and a flexible schedule to visit doctors for the second correspondence from her second addressed no one to stress again working at her own pace to be able to stand to relieve pain for leg cramps flexible schedules for physicians and suggesting that she'd buddy up with record shows that on occasion she would request opportunities to go to her doctor she was given those opportunities the record also shows that there were certain occasions where she did not provide adequate documentation and timely fashion the record also shows there was one  anecdotal incident where she basically made up a story as to where she was not of her doctors and then subsequently said oh i was at the doctors and got a doctor's note to the great hall in the record i believe her and i believe it is you documented there were two i would say that leading up to the event number one her overall conduct which you know of itself illian eight other coworkers but we beg overall on i shouldn't say overall conduct but in terms of where we are others use of threats or intimidation toward supervisors and coworkers inappropriate language or threatening language in the workplace creating a disturbance while on duty in appropriate physical contact with a resident of gelatine thompson care facility and there are those in my mind a relatively vague the additional language then as to the specification details by date and the if and the factual underpinnings withdrew their appeal that stands that's our position the second document again though there is different permutations as to what she did by way of discipline again in our a two there is going to special concern insubordination conduct unbecoming employee other sufficient cause an authorised attempt to secretly remove consumer or take personal and confidential mail without right or permission dishonesty to swear distrustful or untrustworthy behavior inappropriate or threatening language in the workplace creating a disturbance while on duty th intimidation toward supervisors and coworkers and again in the specification details what those things are again that was combined on the appeal they withdrew their appeal as far as our position for this matter that stands and that we resulted in her final term a nation as far as documentation council says that was in the record our review of the record concerning the supplemental information  that was submitted by way of the exhibits in the pound supplemental brief our review does not reveal that exhibit d pages fifty eight through sixty one page sixty six through sixty nine page seventy eight through eighty nine were submitted to the court below and exhibit b or parts or review the record will not submit to the court below and they may be containing exhibits but i don't believe that they were before the district court counsel county council who handled this matter during i guess much of the discourse between what was going to be done by way of accommodating this individual one of the things that he clearly said to coun was creating additional breaks or when we break time for this individual creates a problem for us we are county employee we have hundreds of employees most of our breaks and break times are done in such a fashion that we what we provide to one we provide to all its contractual if we begin to break rank with that i will suggest to you if you begin to break right with that this is not in the record but i will suggest you if if you begin to break rank with that you begin to create what is known as a past practice and you create a problem of undermining the contract that was clearly articulated to plaintiff and her counsel to the best of our knowledge that was not objected to in subsequent matters where and we had an opportunity to meet with counsel again and for refinement of what the accommodations might be needed for this specifically referencing information that council had provided us by way of general accommodations that can be pulled off a website we said like more detailed analysis we never received more detailed analysis in a subsequent meeting in december of zero five requesting from counsel as a result now of his claim that the rather did accommodations that additional accommodations her deposition at any time say that there were certain task it work that she could not do because of your feel your to accommodate now she did not know during the deposition that she did have difficulties performing what i would suggest or might inquire responsibilities but not as a result of a failure to accommodate the buddying up a system that we had you can see in pages or a seventeen of this record some information was before way before anybody can establish any knowledge on the part complaints concerning her conduct i think related to discipline for social conduct and a related and i claim that there is some relation to each ip but no clarification as to how that was  i would say probably the straw that broke the camel's back in this instance the procedure that is generally in place depending on the recommendation of the department of personnel three month county is if you vent is agreed just enough there is an immediate suspension appointing authority and all of those procedural anomalies that counsel complains of at this point in time i will submit to you under the new jersey administrative code or waived as of having your right to have a full hearing before dinner instead of raw just earlier your time is running in that or aren't there different versions of the same story i don't believe so i don't believe that i believe it was basically more of a diversion and again to the extent that that charge i don't think i'd be collateral be attacked by mr brandon as a certain paragraphs and you're materials particularly in light of her deposition in this instance where as i look at it there really isn't any dispute of facts we call i'm looking for certification where it says they said they did this they did not they did not accommodate me they did not do this there is a heat you know somebody says they did somebody says they didn't isn't that your classic case of trial it would be but i don't see that in this record you don't see that in the certification that denies a lot of the things you're saying i don't see a specific case by case denial that was overlooked by the district court in this instance part thank you now we still have another  court to address the aspect of the individual liability under the age and the third circuit has held the specifically in the cause of decision that there is no individual liability for damages under the way in this case with respect to there is no question of fact as to her stature with the county mahmut she was employed by the county a mamak as a supervisor of patient accounts she worked in the geraldine thompson care center and was the immediate supervisor of ms byrne there is no question of fact she was the supervisor of robin snyder but there were there was at least one person within the care center that was above her he was an individual who was presented for a deposition test as a testimony in this matter on behalf of the mom conceded before this court as the issue has been briefed no issue was presented in the briefs submitted on behalf of the appellant in response but the clear the are didn't present side that issue because it didn't need to it did not need to that is correct so we because it doesn't there's not a decision on that basis it is doubtful that we would review well that because it wasn't designed well with all due respect judge i think that it is extraordinarily clear as a matter of law under the ada there can be no individual liability on the part of a supervisor under the l a d it is likewise extraordinarily clear as a matter of to the argument either the pleading or oral argument and i would submit that even if this court if this court were to reverse estimate kind of care centers the decision should be affirmed as to this and i thank you thank you thank you very much i just like to direct your attention the court's attention to page twenty six and page twenty seven of my brief which sets forth and this is just dealing with the letters that came from the  doctors sets and you got to understand appreciate that the doctors were provided by my office a copy of what mary beth's job description was so that they could make a determination what would be best for her in order to be able to  to perform essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodations and they said so in their letters so that and that's unrebutted medical unrebutted medical testimony  in the deposition transcripts that from mary best deposition when you read through that deposition transcript but you see is that they were continually asking her well did you make any other requests for reasonable accommodation did you make an on any other record whether you know her well they did she did get some answers but i want to make sure i wanted to make sure that my record was covered with those objections because reasonable accommodation is a very broad thing under phoenixville i mean it's any any kind of communication that she makes that she needs help like for instance when she first told robinson night or when she went into rama snyder's office and broke down in tears and robert snyder will testify in her deposition and that was attached to my appendix about that event she went in and she told robin schneider i can't take it my kid is home sick i'm i have to help me and what the robin schneider do after mary beth asked her please keep this complementary because mary beth knew she was counseled by her doctors be careful who you tell about this condition the very same day robin schneider went and told i mean van dyne and then several days after that they disciplined her for improper performance of her duties notwithstanding the fact she had just explained to them what was going on that is not good faith interactive process that is not reasonable  granting of reasonable accommodation and that it started from there and then it continued to go now as far as the december twenty eighth hearing where i was talking to mr beekman when you look at that i'd be oh take that and the reason why i there in this entire time i was trying to impress upon these people you have to be sensitive to this woman's condition she needs the job her son is home sick you have to be you have to and i was trying to urge them to do that and there was no sensitivity coming back the other side he held up a stack of documents and said hey if we were you know this is the buddy up documents so so on quote unquote the documents that they saved after every single day when they never told her what she was doing wrong or how she'd go about correcting it or anything on those lines that they were secret into her into a file the file was this big it's on the videotape he held it up and he says if we were weren't trying to reason we accommodate her we would put we would be disciplining her with this well guess what when they take frank trad know the director of of personnel when they take his deposition it comes out that in fact they had credibility call but it's not just the bare bones of what she what she's saying and her certification there are many instances in the record bow of state of quabbin of evidence that shows what it is she was talking about