traffic accident or she was hurt at home are what was it that she how she got hurt and she couldn't write she had a worker's compensation he was workin for yeah right yeah we offered her a position that she said she wanted to do that was light duty but she doesn't claim your she said she wanted to do it because if you she didn't take it she knew you could fire he and her own notes and her deposition testimony indicate that drawing all inference is in her favor at the very latest she was told on march th unequivocably you need to call to let me know if you have any problems getting this lease because i see you signed this tat and you didn't show up with that you know another one that you hadn't sign we're not really sure what you did because you're it appears that you want to or need physically need to be home which were absolutely able to help you but you're also telling us that you can work you're just need find a ride which you are welcome to find a ride in come i regime that you put together of having wal mart said wait and cedric and her supervisors that she's all answering to and she gets confused dredger going to go the judge can do that as a matter of law and the yes especially when she's receiving phone calls and and receiving documents saying you know what's going on you're extending these tax your way outside your period to request leave but we understand that you're struggling please as if you don't come in and you need to request leave the information that she was waiting to hear back from her attorney has to find that she was that's a possible reason why she didn't call during a period those are not reason to ignore correct i mean then why doesn't the jury get to decide her credibility versus the managers credibility and not as a matter of law by the district court because confused  is not a legal defense to long are complying with legal requirements you bring that up if you believe wal mart her testimony indicates that she agrees with the timeline that we that's what it says or it just simply hasn't come up because she wasn't urban needed for using a temporary and her argument and her pellet raef her statement and her declaration all indicate that you want figure out really well at a bit of an overstatement i think it was found argument on accommodation she's accepted these interim positions and then didn't vote for those either i understand that but but i think she was surviving on worker's comp and this form does say and you haven't given the legal justification for why it's a missile over momma martha tell her that if she refuses the interim placement she should be fired for that reason so place i think the law is that she what do you have a duty as a temporary position and had she just said no thank you she would have been able to have her worker's compensation under you know for whatever period she was otherwise entitle to it and if that is right about they don't have an obligation to be a mother right but they did still pick up the phone and ask her about it and she continued to insist i want to work this job i just can't drive i she told them she couldn't get to work food right forty five minutes to get didn't have a way to get there at that hour of the certainly not at that hour of the of the morning couple ing that with a with a statement that you're not able to defend with just a statement on the form that says you know you could be fired if you refuse this job and why isn't that creating issue of fact of the jury about what her intent was whether they knew what her problem was very well because she was not fired for refusing t allowed to decide whether those were reasonable offers or whether they were walmart who really had any concern or confusion about what are genuine and right and i think the computer b and b cleared up because wal mart offered her  a that conversation thank you so just to wrap up as i say on about time i wanted to say that i think the district court judge got this right this is not a bad guys good guys understand that this is lit by her own word