stay a little games here ok there you go sorry about that so tell us where the district court erred in granting summary judgment on behalf of your client's claims all right over the air so the st air going to accommodate and tell you engage in the interactive process mr kelly requested accommodations multiple times during the drug testing process that took place over a four hour period  either up blood tests a live our hair follicle testing instead of the urine testing and there's nothing to show that these are reasonable at these would not be reasonable accommodations wrong fifteen maybe or something like that over a two year period that he was able to provide a sample the fact that in an employee can do stuff at times does not eliminate the requirement to provide reasonable accommodation when it is needed the scenario as we point out in the fact that it is different starts out in a cold room had recently discharged your nation prior to being asked to additional factors going on here multiple they're asking him to write multiple samples he's got the stress of trying to get home in a snowstorm with his wife all these combined well they didn't resent it is that accurate they  to provide multiple samples over this four hour period he's attempting to do so having problems with at that point they're required to engage in the interactive process and provide some kind of accommodation you can't just ignore i mean they rules i mean there's you know you've got to be built the not body temperature urine and then you've got this situation where he's observed  not have the we pointed it out in her brief i apologize because it was brought up on summary judgment and we did point out there he corrected himself in his deposition later on and again there's a dispute on whether or not mr edge even observed the sample as mr kelly testify that the tube was outside in he's not trying to game the system he requested more accurate testing that could not be you can't test or a hair follicle if he had drugs in his system those are going to remain it is system specifically the hair follicle days and he would be tested his hair follicle would show all of his past drug use of if it was brought up so it doesn't make sense that to avoid having a urine test that he requests a more accurate testing me jelly was already on medical leave when they asked him to stay at work for an additional four hours it's not our position that if they would have asked him during his shi a intermittent leave or opportunity or whatever you characterize  fine just let us know when you need to do it i mean is there any documentation of them out there now besides the site to be the is quite reasonable and you know he was accommodated to the extent that that made sense during the testing so he was given more time and he was allowed to you know kind of wander about to get coffee and whatnot but still within the context of the test so the so the notion that he wasn't accommodated in any regard is not is not true the testimony from mr larkin who was boeing's head for hours unable to provide a sample mr larkin testified then at that point you would go to some other some other way to collect so that that's a reasonable response to the situation there's no evidence otherwise me the district court judge simon got it cut to the chase on this whole thing and said there's no evidence that anyone was engaged in any sort of pretext about thinking that he was so there's a little bit of difference between the two claims but on disability and it's the familiar sort of pretext standard and boeing has a legitimate larkin was in the seattle area he runs the drug free workplace they get him on the phone he doesn't know mr kelly there's no history there so without some evidence of pretext or be have evidence of a negative factor so we the way it plays out is he says when my supervisor mr weightman came to get me and tell me that i had to be tested but i told him you know i've already requested f m l a which was the supposed request to mr mckinnon who had been with the company and you will not be surprised to learn that boeing has a automated process for requesting leave opinion my recollection of the record is later is on a train try to rehabilitate him on that and the rehabilitation this is rather our fall because the draws happened was that it is declaration or later on during the same deposition because i did you know only been in his declaration judge simon what he called the declaration a sham and which is what they requested and he said no he did it corrected to avoid summary judgment he made the correction and is that their board jam declaration and doesn't apply and the only thing i wanted to quickly point out and mr lockman he doesn't recall anything and he wasn't the decision maker and the district court did rely heavily on mr lock n decision maker and there's no evidence that he made the decision and you only had the authority to recommend or advise that a policy violation may have occurred ok thank you for that and thank you for your argument as the matter submitted this t