about who's responsible for the breakdown in an interactive process after an employee requests a reasonable accommodation  i may i would like to start by addressing one general matter in columns brief it argues repeatedly that the commission makes statements in reliance on evidence that is not in the record and while that was true in district court there i want to clarify to the extent the court has any concerns about that point because we didn't challenge the other denture exclusions and we didn't rely on them on appeal that is really an  then with regard to the interactive process close our hears that manning and the process by leaving a march thirty first meeting which was called to discuss her request for an accommodation due to her diabetes which was exacerbated by her working erratic chefs an argues that she ended the process because she didn't follow up in contacting calls again after her manager called her a few two weeks later but the commission's point brought in a doctor's note and requested a more stable work schedule and they said no and in the process of discussing the request of accommodation what would be medically acceptable for her manic explain to calls managers that what she needed was her doctor's note had  said basically between the hours of nine and six would be a regular day time work schedule that would be suitable for her she told me and told her sir managers when she met with them on march thirty first that she was available for a wider range of hours now calls ignores this completely and that's great but the district court d the in the office meeting where as the same meaning ask for something broader than the doctors and that was reflected in the doctor statement and the the response she got back i mean it's sort of like a brick wall if the company keeps saying we can't give ninety five we can ninety six we can't give you ninety six and she keeps saying that's not what i'm asking i'm asking you for something broader than that you could schedule me earlier or later just not close just not open but they never address that they just say no nine six so when i called i thought i mean there are touch toys but on april ninth after manning was already in contact with the e e o c they go back they ask her to come back to work and they specifically tell her car says that she would talk with coles corporate office about potential commendations when manning asked about the work schedule in particular why not continue that conversation and i would think the you know say what i told her absolutely continue that don't throw yourself off a cliff without pers issue if factual i missed that there's a factual dispute as to whether or not anyone from the e e o c told her that we were unable establish that anyone did but but is there a factual dispute when she was asked by the doctor at the company why why didn't you follow up on that she said someone from the hold or not she's in and of very short exchange she did answer that question yes but it was my impression reading that deposition that she just wanted to get out of there but we don't we don't go on impressions or she know we did that's correct and and so we have her giving as a reason why she just didn't follow up on that is that she believes someone from the e e o c hold her not to go i'm sorry your honor that means that the first two you answer to that may not have been clearly enough prayer presented in our reply brief the first the first answer is throughout most of mannix deposition when the portions of manning's that position that calls relies on saying the ios he told her not to do it or are very unclear in she just isn't certain of what happened at the time she says she says she doesn't remember it's a crazy time she loves her job so the and the other thing is the district board did say there's a gen dispute in fact one of the reasons the court found at odds with this idea that e s c told her not to call which really doesn't make any sense is that the reason she didn't call is the company didn't offer her car the manager called her didn't offer her any thing during the phone call really other tangibly other than part time work but i said i thought he also said interpreted that to mean carr is going to talk to the same corporate office that already on march thirty first or earlier said they can't they have an open availability requirement they can't modify their schedule that's been the the company's position throughout the entire case they're open availability requirement restricted her and having heard that articulated to her a number of times she just didn't see any that it was anything but futile to continue trying to get a rule change that wasn't open to being changed that she puts herself what why not go back to work and work whatever hours she thinks she can work and leave it at that that company fires or the fire why why take this right off the cliff to where she's instead of talking that's an interesting point i don't think she thought that would be appropriate it would be violating the rules to come you know to accept a schedule that had her working for him one morning that's correct our point is that the reasons for her decision it least there's a question of fact and whether the reasons for her decision were reasonable think i think the only way really to and to drive the point home is post maintains that has maintained that it requires full time employees to have open scheduling availability and that's what it wanted from manning so other than accept a job with lesser benefits part time she was stuck with the choice of either working open availabilities all hours or of continuing the conversation well that makes sense if the conversations likely to someone throws himself off the economic cloth and then they're left with the getting nothing or the employer is on the hook for a whole self immolation i believe it right and to the extent that the e e o c thinks  process the interactive process is important i think the thing that makes this case different is she was suffering from a medical condition that was making her life i don't know i want to say  hell i don't know if that's appropriate she just needed to change the of the hour she was working and the company was unwilling to do it so i think she felt like she had reached the end of a rope and i think that's reasonable given her blood sugars guy rocking up and down and her need for insulin injections dramatically increasing and her doctors conclusion that the erratic hours is having an effect on that i believe that's our point that there's evidence in dispute on this issue and the evidence viewed in light of  light meaning allows the court to conclude a jury to conclude that she made a reasonable decision to protect her h yes that's true but otherwise she also offered different testimony when asked did he even see tell you not to call she she said i don't remember it was a crazy time mention and the other back the district court took under consideration was that the store car didn't say anything to manning that would suggest there was anything  of talking that there was any opportunity there was a likelihood that they would adjust her schedule so manning didn't ok manning a jury  to comply with the local rules and the court's order page twenty which is the a dent in page twenty footnote forty seven that information was specifically excluded it says that employment w particularly true or where an employee prematurely ends the interactive process by either resigning or retiring and that's what happened here manning's failure to engage an interactive process is evil to the specific accommodation and let's assume that the fact finder could find that that was a reasonable accommodation that would allow the employee to do the work and the employer simply says no we won't do that but sits at the table and plays twenty questions try again doesn't offer any accommodation back that is reasonable how do we what's employee to do in the situation then i would say that is not what no and doesn't offer any other alternative reasonable accommodation the interactive process requires the employer and the employee to talk about what the employees restrictions are and to discuss possible accommodations that might work for both the employee and the employer and that didn't happen here and it's not because coles wasn't going to do that it was because manning refused to have a discussion with them she had a discussion and she proposed that i think that i think the district court found that the fact finder could determine that the accommodation she proposed was a reasonable one and maybe it could have but that doesn't mean that that was the only possible accommodation and causes different types of accommodations that might be reasonable suppose they hadn't gone back to her in which that's kind of the hypothetical i'm saying they have a meeting she says i want to be accommodation i need a reasonable schedule they say no we can't change the schedule that would mean changing for everyone period but then she walks out but they attempted to have a discussion with her about other potential accommodations was there something else that may have worked for her not only did they try to have that discussion with her during the meeting that she walked out of the same the door but but now after her into the break room and said come down let's have a discussion let's talk about potential combinations that may work for you and again she said no and packed up her her belongings and left for the day and never returned and then to chicago he shot her the following week she called her up and said let's talk let's let's consider all possible accommodations for both both time and part time employment and she refused and with her what the evidence shows is that she refused because it least in her mind the e e o c told her not to communicate with calls and  she does not deny that in fact she's she has said to two separate things she said she didn't think that that further discussion would be fruitful but she also said and she does not denies that she said that she didn't call because it's also clear from the record that between the time the media started and the time that that manning left even under the e u sees version of the facts it was less than a half an hour between the time the meeting stop started and the time that  c regulations are clear that the interactive process is designed so that both the employee and employer understand what the employee's restrictions are and they can talk about possible accommodations that would enable the employer to accommodate the employee's restrictions and again calls does not have an obligation to give an employee the accommodation that they demand they have an obligation to give them an accommodation that if that is effective and under these circumstances as additional work found colston haven't all been have an opportunity to get that far because manning frustrated the interactive process by refusing to talk to her supervisor and i looming the door on them but despite that fact they ran after her and tried to continue the dought the dialogue because they wanted to work something out they wanted to be able to provide her an accommodation that would work for both the employer and the employee and they weren't able to do that because manning refused to communicate with them and at least in part because the e e o c told her not to communicate with calls and  me with the perfect schedule that that she wanted it still would not have been an ineffective accommodation because as the record shows manning manning has not been able to control her blood sugar levels  evidence to support that there are in fact she's manning says that nothing has changed medically since she resigned that it has been the same and what has changed is the fact that she gets regular meal and and sleep patterns which was why she was asking for the schedule change was that she could have just that and even when she's given that she says that her blood sugar levels are uncontrollable so even if she had been given this perfect schedule that that she was looking for it wouldn't have changed anything for her medically and so the e e o c has the burden of proving that the requested accommodation would have effect of late accommodated her her medical restrictions and and based on the evidence in the record that just is is not so it wouldn't of happened and in the the final issue is is with regard to constructive discharge and there the e claims that mean anything severe threat to her health and even possible death if she continued working erratic hours it calls and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that and and the information that that the e e o c tries to put  in in their reply brief again that was not a record evidence that was before the district court and shouldn't be considered by this court either and manning it meaning is not all fired to testify about her about a self a self diagnosis because she's she's not a doctor she's a lay person and it's an objective person standard with the result purple person in many shoes have felt compelled to resign and i think that i think there is the district or health in reasonable person sitting in any shoes would not have felt compelled to resign under the circumstances