design and construction claim right she still has a claim or may have a claim of reasonable accommodation under a different provision of the law that she's now going to shit current owners are she doesn't handicapped person reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such a person so it would appear a cause of action to somebody who intend say that they are supposed to be incorporated aren't there so somebody in a wheelchair can't get into it but under their theory then the statute begins to suit as the presumably stic certificate of occupancy is an issue and it terminates at the same time and so far as they are concerned that is so then if that's the case then what cause of action would like instead of what he else afterward because what should be soon sure is the very the condition hasn't terminated exactly right if there is so it doesn't so under judge thomas the scenario in question if somebody comes in and waits fifteen years and then decides to sue as long as the condition of the building remains as as it is it was fifteen years ago the condition the discriminatory practice in your view doesn't terminate it so why would the date of injury there so there is no there is no time for as far as she's concerned regardless of when their cause of action is the same it's for the same in essence it's for the same in your failure to comply so why is that under your theory of continuing violation doesn't she have at least at the least a new cause of action if she comes back to this building  discover the condition that was constructed in violation of the requirements that are set forth in the statute and you're saying that two years and if you don't find it out you're out of luck three years ago and now i go because i have to move in and out of my house into an apartment and i can't rent your place because the statute of limitations under your theory has run and some disabled i'm on the hook even though the seller of the building to me is off the hook after two years you have to permit disable perspective tack to make it come in and remodel remodel the apartment ye people who created the condition off the hook after two years and left the disabled person at the mercy of landlords who can say sure you go ahead you want to read you know remodel this apartment the vast majority of situations what you're dealing with this is stable rights for his age in that sense as a member tester determine if there's been a violation under reasonable investigation of the disabled rights organization well that's a fight a violation and will have standing to sue by the time that the construction of the design and construction is completed in this instance for example drought and july one thousand nine hundred ninety seven set in its tester to the village the do and you're saying it's unfair to expose builders and designers to willfully ignore the requirements of the statute to hold them liable for the consequences of what they do to five ten years later they built the building if they are worried about ongoing liability they can always when they sell the building get indemnification presumably but you want to turn this into a statute of rep encountered one statute of repose that i'm familiar with since i've been on the bench and that was the aircraft engine statute of repose that is very specific  specifically what you want us to do is construe this language into something that treats the determination of the practice as the expiration of two years the terminations of the practice the issue here bring it into compliance with the statute that terminates the discriminatory practice the district is defined the discrimination is failing to build doors that are accessible to wheelchair  the blame on to somebody you know the architect so i designed it this way the builder but that way that's something you could let them fight it out but i don't understand how you take and agree person a statute of limitations and turn it into which say it is a two year cut off and it all depends on whether or not some disabled rights organization picks up on it and sooth your basically wiping out the rights of any individual in any area of the country who hasn't been fortunate enough to have of the civil rights organization out doing testing and that you know i'm sympathetic absolutely sympathetic to longer builders situation and i understand it but in this we're looking up what congress was doing that it was worried about tennis it was not worried about the builders and contraire i don't believe that the statute creates an ongoing  ongoing duty to remedy inaccessible features it would have included language similar to that in e t a which makes it discrimination to fail to remove architectural barriers and that's forty two u s c one two one eighty t eighty four that language is not in the statue of limitations or in that the definition of the claim in the f h a and therefore congress did not intend on go to create an ongoing duty to remedy inaccessible features interpretation that upon the failure to design and construct a compliance with the f h a there is a discriminatory housing practice within the meaning of thirty six zero four f two because at that point housing for the disabled is limited they're treated as second class citizens public insensitivity is perpetuated there deterred from visiting viewing and renting such property and people are purposes of section thirty six one three they want to which is the statute of limitations complexes and the first apartment complexes complex was completed and the plaintiff brought an action three years ago i remember how many years it was after two years more than two years after the completion of the original apartment complex cases between the act and the fact there's no question that the act of the design which failed to comply with the law and the act of construction which also fail after before the time that the certificate of occupancy was created the question is whether or not the continuing violation doctrine makes it a continuing after or whether it is simply a