receiving positive performance evaluations having no disciplinary record and he took off to get it bans degree up rd but there were no combination of his work issues most along with depression that he already suffered from he had to request an accommodation there these conditions affected his ability to perform the major life activity of working he is the record he has ample documentation showing that his doctors said it was difficult for him to sleep at night which in turn made it difficult for him to concentrate on his work tas gel with the request for an accommodation of a consistent stirred time yes social worker he was assigned to two schools but these two schools he had different start trying and because request was denied by the board then who are to believe that this was simply a matter of convenience and they had what the department referred to it as a matter of convenience  and they did not go beyond apparently sending a form to the doctor having the doctor fill it out they never went back to mr williams to ask additional questions back to the doctors to get clarification and it appears that the trial court simply accepted this characterization of what the doctors were saying were legitimate accommodation requests but basically the board just blew off the lack of a better phrase just regarded his his request and disregarded requesting a reduced haste and he wanted to he was asking to be removed from prescott now he had spoken he had talked to the board about the accommodations that appear at me they conveyed something to express a bill at prescott who started implementing special requirements for him to keep track of records and so forth which was quite as being even greater concern to him he tried to get assistance from the board to no avail so he wanted to be removed from prescott reduced caseload in some of these other requests areas indicating that he could not legitimately perform the essential functions of his job that that is not the case the essential functions of his job in there articulated in the record are to counsel students and to to help students there are no mandates that there be a specific number of students that he council or that he attend to there are no mandates that there are certain number of hours that he he has to  l and so forth so it's not a matter of whether or not you know he can perform the essential function of the job it's whether or not his requests were reasonable and to determine if the requests are reasonable it's important to to understand one what the job is and to what the needs of the board work in that brings up the issue of  failing to purchase a paper in good faith in the interactive process he had they had occurred some of these things some of these misunderstandings if that's what they were would not h occurred but the board did not in good faith and gauge an interactive process the requests were made and then denied he appealed to those requests and those were tonight there was no interaction if the board felt they had do to the needs of the board in that they couldn't do a particular accommodation request they had an obligation to talk to mr williams talk to mr williams doctors to see what would be reasonable and in the whole purpose behind this is so that the person so consistent i think he at that point was he had a consistent star time but he was asking for things there were necessary to his job as a  social worker a desk a computer a working fax them working phone it's cetera now you know the court was obviously skeptical the board was skeptical of those things but the fact is him again had they gave him interactive process and learned about his depression learned about his what he needed to succeed what he needed to do to excel you know in his job this wouldn't have been such such a major at a problem  it gave him some accommodations with respect to the to the office and that was really the st time they had someone actually came out to the school talk to the principal look at space  very clearly stated there that test some more difficult for someone to accomplish when they're suffering from anxiety and depression and simple  things are much more difficult so he's he's got a tough job he's serving you know a number of students who are troubled in a troubled community he has dreams who are threatening to kill themselves and do all types of things so he needs to service those students and not be looking for a a place to talk to them not be searching for a paper and pen an affair in this and that and a lot of this stuff he's required as a social worker to fill out paperwork and to  is a mandatory reporter in so these are not unusual things but because he was constantly searching for resources it cost him a lot of a lot of stress but but the court didn't understand they aren't getting to afford him the board didn't contact his doctor so that i think you know he had there again had there been more communication and understanding about depression think they had underlying is this whole case that this guy is just asking for you know a special treat and sand is not really it's not really the depression an etc he just wants better working conditions and that's not true he he wants to serve the students in a reasonable manner and in a non wear the board is coming from of they failed to participate in good faith in the interactive process they did in fact allow other people in that's in  of it should have gone forward this is not appropriate for summary judgment thank you thank you ms palm and will now hear from the happily mr doyle morning mickeys the court the question on summary judgment was whether the plaintive had presented evidence in support of his claims whether he met his burden to show that there were viable claims here i'll start with one of the last pieces that my colleague just mentioned the notion that the board increased his caseload as we had argued in our brief or pointed out in our priest there is no evidence anyone at the board made a decision to increase mr williams's caseload there is also no evidence that anyone took any action to increase his caseload instead what happened is his caseload went up when he changed schools he asked for a school change we gave him a school change and his new school there was more work there is not any evidence that this was retaliation or somehow done in bad faith or out of any animals and it also leads us to another important point in discussing the argument that she had just made my colleague that his caseload went out in two thousand and seventeen and eighteen and that brings us to what is the temporal scope for this appeal the district court judge ruled correctly that the last date that was relevant was the date of the nd e e o c charge which is december of two thousand and fifteen she also said that any events occurring after that date would have to be like or reasonably related to the items that were included in his december th or december two thousand e mails see charge there is no effort on this record to show that the events were alike or reasonably related to anything that happened after two thousand and fifteen there were different schools involved different circuits supervisors involved and different circumstances involved the appellant never engages with that legal test the like or reasonably related and in the opening brief never identifies which specific items from after two thousand and fifteen ought to be ought to have been considered in the district court the proper temporal scope is up through two thousand and fifteen let me mention one of the points that you had asked about judge ripple which was the equipment requests that appear as part of  the rd request for disability accommodations there is a long laundry list and we collect with those who are in our briefs the answer is not that he was being denied those things the answer is that he already had them al he had to share some of them with other personnel at chicago public schools there is no evidence in the records that there was a standalone office with a standalone fax machine and shredder and dedicated phone line that was available for mr williams that he was denied access to instead he had all of the equipment that he needed albeit to share with other people in addition there is no dispute on the record that mr williams had access to private space to meet with students when he had counseling sessions with students his ability to do his job as a social worker requiring privacy was not in any way impaired by the list of items that he did not get as specific disability accommodation requests on that laundry list of office equipment items that he had asked to have his own dedicated equipment in that same disability request we see some of the other things that mr williamson asked for he asked to be excused from  performance evaluations saying that those were somehow connected to his disability he asked to be excused from the residency waiver rules or the residency rules these items were not shown as we point out or were not shown to be connected to his disability and were not shown to be items that he that the board unreasonably denied him regarding for example the performance had four separate evaluations and the scores for those are collected on an item that is in the in the the record it's the reach score paper is in the record he received that reach score in december of two thousand and fourteen on the timetable that everyone else did his score led him to be not within the priority candidates for the the items that he was asking for for example when he asked for a saturday or a summer assessment when he asked for a lead or field work assignments his scores were simply too low f seventy four dash two pages forty seven to fifty and that includes what exactly are professional background was she what she did your honor there there is my colleague did not discuss in her opening argument but she did discuss in her brief her just discrimination calling that she had made one of the points i would like to talk about briefly  is the scanner of causation that applies it's a but for standard causation in other words was her disability but for cause of the adverse action that she has identified the proof that ms williams or that mr williams identifies in the record shows nothing like a bus for causation between the adverse actions that he discusses and the  connection to his disability there are other explanations for all of the decisions that were made about his employment the saturday summer assignment the field and lead assignment those items were not caused by his discrimination by any discrimination against him because of his disability there was a time when there may have been some ambiguity in the circuit whether but four was the correct standard since the monroe versus in the entered partner transportation case indeed probably since forty's the court has said this court has said it is but for technically that may still be an open question but this court has recently said that the overwhelming view is that but for causation is the standard that ought to apply your honor the the appellant also argues at several points in his brief that the that there is evidence of pretext there is no evidence of pretext here there is no evidence that the board was outright phrase and matter of convenience the record shows that came up in connection to when mr williams st requested the consistent start time and that was his disability requests that he or his commendation request that he made in september two thousand and fourteen someone said that to him there is no indication that that is some smoking gun that that is some direct evidence of discriminatory animists it is in a knock you a not another assignment available that would give you the start time that you are requesting mr williams has no proof as such and they sign it existed somewhere else a c p s it would have served the combination request he was asking for what we offered him was a different accommodation that was designed to meet the same concern we told him we have arranged for an arrival time for you that would be steady in other words this would let you stabilize your schedule this would let you get your sleep on a consistent schedule of what you can do you're still required to be there for the entire time that students are there and your workday corresponds to the time that students are there their reason for that your honor is we need social workers there and the students prepare and across the p s they are paid according to the time when students are they are in learning so your honor his complaint in the brief is that he we asked him to work without pay for an hour that's not what we asked we offered him a way to make his schedule consistent later in may of two thousand and seventeen when he again asked for a seven forty five am start time we told him again in may of two thousand and fifteen there is not an assignment available for you that we can give you immediately however we can give you that for the following fall which is exactly what happened he was transferred out of prescott he was moved to process this was an employee who made many requests to disability accommodations most of which we granted some of which we rejected out of hand because we could not do them for example we could not eliminate the requirement that he no longer have any evaluation of his work performance i mentioned that one year but your honor when we could we got him it's a start time he was looking for when we could we move him out of prescott he asked for i have a filter we got it for him we made sure there are a long list of office equipment items that he had access to everything you needed your private workspace there is no evidence here that we denied it out of hand and in fact our brief collects the evidence of how we did it been gauging the interactive process with  we emailed we met we had phone conversations there is extensive evidence in the record showing exactly how we discussed what it was that he was looking for and the best way to accomplish what he was  point your honor mr williams asked for a lighter caseload we we told him no we don't have a lighter case load assignment available for you the law in the circuit is clear as a disability accommodation we are not required to create a light duty assignment for someone if one exists and a plaintiff can identify it it may be something that we would be required consider mr williams never identifies that a light duty assignment existed somewhere else at c p s your your honor for all of these reasons are we would ask that this court affirm the district court on summary judgment the district court was correct to reject the refusal to accommodate when we did not accommodate him the district court was correct to reject the discrimination claim and the district court was correct to reject the retaliation calling thank you disciplinary action he was removed from his p d p neither of his principals had any performance problems with him other people noted in the record notes that he had a good job he had good job performance yet he still receive not where performance evaluation now i don't think this court can look at the their reach  performance evaluation in isolation he was suffering from these disabilities he was requesting accommodation so he could fully do his job the accommodations that many of which were necessary were not given to him as a result of his work product you know it's not  her to see how this would happen his work product was not perhaps as good it is it should be but these are not these are interconnected his requests and their failure to accommodate him are connected with the ultimate reach evaluations this meander should go to a jury the question of their intent whether they acted in good faith