evidence to establish a crime official case of discrimination including that there was potentially a reasonable accommodation that would have permitted to continue and to consider if you could see perform his job as a room do the room he may very well have to report glass of milk and put that on a tray with them with on the table but didn't hear him it that he could not who are just a gallon of milk that that would hurt him lift up the thirty six pounds and carry up to thirty six pounds but job description that we have excerpts of record on him to page one hundred and nine dollars shows that the maximum lifting and caring for the job on the job stripping is thirty five dollars pounds so in accordance with his he felt that he couldn't do was the heavy work which would be doing the hospitality a larger groups which would be more physically intense and require some heavier lifting but i will note again that the job description doesn't know that those are essential functions because the heavier weights that would have to be lifted are not listed as requirements on the job description so again that would be those that ha essential functions of the regular room service drop the marginal functions maybe not so much and there was some just wanted to do that if there were heavier trays that were going up to the rooms that you might need the accommodation rather than in to the room and then lift the case and all the meals are eaten off the part and on to wherever it is in the room that it's going to go up is that right and i believe th his right and as much so that's my understanding with respect to taking things off of a shelf as if he could do it with his left hand and it could use his right hand just not repetitively over and over again and that's one of the problems with the interactive process here they employer rather than just saying you can't do this job should have worked with him and possibly reached out to the doctor and as part of the interactive process to determine what exactly the doctor had in mind when he said repetitively is that you know the same movement over and over again for hours on end or as you need not more than twenty times in a day  and sixteen with mr rizal us having already made up their mind that they were not going to let him continue to work his job they were not going to try and accommodate him they were going to push him into a job search program where he would basically have to go out and work where there was apparently more heavy lifting and more setting up the large tables which realistically i think should have taken two people to do anyway there were large tables but again that was considered  to be marginal and something that he could declined to do with the only penalty being that he got the bottom of the list for those arms do you consider that an accommodation it's going to be a little unclear whether  types of orders with the types of up with the hospital yours it's a large will function i believe that it would be an accommodation that he would need to make sure that he was able to decline those without being and there being any problems which it accommodation so mr rose all us was considered to be disabled by the employer and they terminated because of his disability they took him off of his room service sobered up express good faith to determine whether or not accommodations what permit him to go on doing his job and that's probably come back to the holding in barnett that says if someone if an employer does not engage in good faith in that interactive process to make these any of us on this video is free to go apply for the jobs but the city says has to happen is you have to put somebody in a job that open and available and the person is able to do in the employer is in the best position to know what those jobs are and what their armpits of the that that will mean you know lifting full trays like that could have been an issue that he would have needed accommodation for which they talked about using the cart other that would have been available as a result of competition at the guts of what the just record stuff well thirty to forty pounds so you know is ready is thirty six pounds i mean so there could be some accommodations for those other items baby there was other equipment that could be used or something of that nature but again we never had a   perform aside from a few the large hospitality for which he could refuse to do the work there were other work including five work which in primary function of the job and essential function that he could not do he specifically called out the difference between heavy and light eyed work if you look at the supplemental exercise record on page of his deposition it goes from page twenty six to twenty seven of the upper middle clean the area where they've been preparing the food service on the individual tables that have been rolled up to the guest room in order to do that they have to constantly clean and stop the area where they  where the service hot items be condom and anything that goes onto the table that goes up to a guest room they retrieve those items from big storage areas in the back where the rich refrigerated or not refrigerated they have to climb the up to a ten foot high shelf to lift down boxes of condiments and other items and then take those over to the area of the warehouse aging area where they put together the individual service table and then have to lift tho unfolding the table so they perform all of this work on where they take the table up to the guest room that's on page twenty six he never said that the tables themselves had to be folded in unfolded by two or three people when he said sometimes the rooms are tablecloth stuck and when they got stuck it would take two or three of them working together to unstick back a bit at the table from self had to be put together by each individual server what's important is on supplemental excerpts of record page twenty dollars after he explains the table he goes on starting a line twenty or at length seven to state so that part of side work i don't think i could do any more but most there was a listing of side would do it was light work too like cleaning the beverage area i would just be cleaning cleaning the beverage period nothing to do with heavy lifting is clearly saying that there was five work that was light that was heavy couldn't do heavy fighting with only wanted to do the life work this addition to that he specifically said in his deposition testimony that that the side we're going to hurt is more that was on mental excerpts twenty seven beyond that with respect to his neck he said on supplemental you look at the complaint there's a single cause of action for disability discrimination and it's clearly articulated as ability to accommodate but when we filed our motion for summary judgment on the rd the comedy clane and identify that he was unable to perform essential functions for the reasons that we've been discussing twenty four times in his opposition when you took the position that he did not need accommodation that is counter to what he represented in his complaint and answers to interoperate or easy gave us where he specifically said  he needed modified might do the work in order to continue performing the job so if he claims now that he's no accommodation he can't be a failure to accommodate his it's axiomatic that the individual has to i mean if you take it at face value he played the wrong standard and you know that that leaves us with either revising the record of enron analysis which is false image action material and apply the standard to look at whether this is a qualified individual who is able to perform the accommodations or are able to perform all the essential functions with or without accommodations the important thing here is  he asked for or need a reasonable accommodation the only accommodations he asked for was a permanent modified light to the job removing from him any of the heavy activities now that's not just those hospitalities that's also the a permanently my right to the position for him what made him into life work and take away part of his essential functions and to require coworkers to perform the heavier parts of the job for him that's not required by the law it's not  that the situation in the record at the time it was before the district court was that he had said that he couldn't do that the essential functions of the job no actually stated he could perform all of these central functions and head in saying essential functions i was reading the very st two sentences in the body under job description and function where it says what the primary responsibility is and this statute states  arguing over those hospitality events we're arguing over whether he can do the basic day to day service of the customer inside what is required of all of the servers i think the other important  observe it employees doing that job then she met with the plaintive at which point they discussed his restrictions and what he thought he could not perform that's excerpts to record and twenty nine i know it's a little bit difficult to read the writing because of course this individual was deposed she was able to tell us what her writing said and it started out by talking about his permit restrictions and then it went to him asking him his response and he said it couldn't keep head up be all we lift more than thirty five pounds push pull carts that way over one hundred and fifty pounds pushing up the hill respectfully i think it's an incomplete determination because there is testimony in the record on the pages i've cited where she says specifically after leaving with the plaintiff she went back to management and talked about the challenges that he had identified with performing the day's testimony was that a chart came there or and said is there anything else decides what's in the job description she told him no it what's in the job description is pretty much what we do you know in workplaces all the time people do work as a is this side work was assigned by management on a case by case basis and they could have worked as a team and work to stop that happens all the time and work places that they came to this meeting with mr results and  not engage in good faith if they had questions about what repetitive was meant by the doctor that they should have asked of that they should have gotten clarification from the doctor they didn't do that so there was a lack of good faith and as we said barnett says if you come and do this interactive process in bad faith and there's a question of fact if you're if you're not acting a bit there's a question of fact that will preclude summary judgment and that's exactly what we have in this case the district court sought a reasonable jury could certainly see it as