restriction to a desk job and it was never given anything to the contrary you can go on about well it wouldn't make any difference but the fact is it was never told the contrary is that not true from the doctor correct yes they said maybe that's why he didn't but that's neither here and there he didn't respond for that job offer correct that's incorrect it's the same job he has to for the first two times that was most i'm sorry that's that's not what the record shows the record shows distance having work limited to zero doubt ones and one that ones work where you never climb anywhere a relatively clerical employee and making some of these determinations or supervisors or anyone else is going to make those medical determinations you have to be able to rely on the opinions of the doctors what we register his interest and transfer into any job in their court then there is of elaborate seniority effort to do to do that you can switch jobs you can transfer from location to location and so forth when someone p program to assist people who may be able to qualify for a substitute job with a minimal amount of training that yes he wanted he was offered substitute jobs record does not indicate that there was a training available on this particular words or processing tasks that he was asked to take for the second job it was offered it was a basic  statement that in that job classification you may put somebody who becomes disabled into another view or a different job but you never will make an accommodation that would allow someone to continue to do a  let's say the determination is made in all instances it's a person cannot perform this job because the person cannot climb poles ok let's say if i understand what their argument really but it is coming at it from i think the a v m a angle that this is the first theater is vast it's clear from the record that climbing poles climbing ladders lifting manhole cover walking standing all the things that that he was disqualified by the doctors on his desk job only are special functions of the job even even the concept of walking tech which he says is a job which is terrible people we may never accommodate but that makes no difference to him because he couldn't do it no matter what i mean it's so so he's an individual face i understand the argument i think i hear me well in fact he knew he could do everything except crime calls and he also knew that without one exception they would refuse any accommodation what  climb poles aside from your definition yes by definition yes not every not every time a service person goes out to they have to rip climb a pole sometimes the customer  that there are lots of service tech jobs where the people never have to climb poles i mean no they're not being sent out at random they just never have to climb a pole and that's the kind of job they could accommodate the and that's what he is the answer if he doesn't get to pick and choose which accommodation and which job he he wants if we offer a reasonable alternative position which we've done and which the times ok well first of all we were in your case we probably put you back on the pole but that would be even a vigor mistake but it's the terminology again hume was never offered  corps job all covered by the collective bargaining agreement and there was a procedure for doing that mr willis and the other plaintiff in that case a capital transfer you have enough seniority to do it because there wasn't a vacancy in this particular situation there's no evidence that there was any was no god and there is no job for example that would have pasadena who said that we don't give any work to permanently restricted service technician and that's been the policy pack on there was never anything on the record in the record anywhere that this was in fact their policy