and granting a motion for summary judgment the district judge says throughout all of the evidence that mr fernandez offered a ruling that some of it was not based upon a tribal issue of fact it seems to me it has to those conditions had to have existed during the relevant period of her during the relevant period of her employment or doctor's restrictions did not preclude her from working altogether it was a light load whatever but she wasn't totally disabled at that time so far as i'm sorry of the long winded but that i had to get it all out because i thought to me that's the heart of the case and i wanted to hear from you on it if you're very happy to address  you see in march by more march twenty fourth for example the doctor had lessened the restrictions to two hours of keyboarding in four hours of writing a day and that was the diagnosis that continued through april twenty eighth when time the doctor at that time restricted her to four hours a day or combination of writing and typing yes ok she then went to the doctor again on march third one thousand nine hundred ninety that's twist that i did so i haven't given them a twist all i'm just saying what the limitations were they were very severe on march third requiring no keyboard work and only two hours of writing for a day by march twenty fourth the restrictions work two hours keyboarding in four hours of writing that is there was an improvement and a lightning of the restrictions and that was the continued diagnosis until april twenty eight that her supervisor conducted every week and none of those interviews over a five year period of time without any question about backlog about the backlog being a problem i've got the doctor's report i think it's the three the february twelve ninety nine reporting that the doctor checks a box that says the above named person does not have a serious health condition to both of those types of discrimination ms fernandez is required to establish that she was disabled meaning a substantially limited in a major life activity the court is correct it purports to be a chronology of what happened i mean that i don't think it's clear from the declaration and there's no evidence in the record as to when well if we could read it that way that she's going you know first january twenty fifth  i don't think that you can in addition that paragraph in her declaration is totally inconsistent with her medical records and doctor's notes for that same period substantial records were subpoenaed  no because she admitted in her deposition that it is true that she could work eight hours per day during the relevant time period which is this two month period in one nine hundred ninety nine from february to april and that her only restrictions were typing two assigned to light duty and she was still working eight hours per day doing filing and other type office work that didn't require typing and handwriting pursuant to her doctor's restrictions but the motor case the supreme court case says that the standard for proving a disability must be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard and that the impairment must be permanent or long term and the impairment must subsist severely restrict the major life activity when and here i think the evidence is far less specific on the caring for one's r l it's much more specific it's more like the evidence in the toyota case said you would need but let me ask you a different question  her performance what happened was that she never got a chance to improve because of the carpal tunnel syndrome and she was in this time to some other function because she couldn't do what was necessary to improve where does that leave the legal issue where someone is disturbed who might have improved and would have been given a chance to improve but for the physical federal relate regulation five c f r three fifteen point eight zero three that applies to probationary employees and during during this time mr fernandez undisputed was on a one year probationary period that ended in april of hundred ninety nine and that regulation provides that federal employers must terminate employees who fail to prove that they can satisfactorily do their job during the probationary period here  a very serious problem and that i understand that but i think she was improving originally she was doing fifty five a month and then she got up to sixty six and she was supposed to get to seventy seven that's not improving well she was giving overtime she was given an increasing number of cases to be handling which was a goal for her is to get up to the number of expected cases that other asylum officers in the office were handling so she was be given an opportunity to prove  deference and so i would suggest that the court should follow that in addition there is no requirement whatsoever whether it's a federal employer or any other employer for an employee employer combination issue here she came in and said because of my ham problems i would like voice recognition software that other people in the office have and i want other people to type up my reports i can understand the problem with having other people typing up reports i don't understand why she was declining which recognition software that particular request was not really a reasonable request for accommodation because it's undisputed and she admitted in her deposition that typing would still be required in order to use that program she also contends and her deposition that she was completely unable to type during this period i mean i'm familiar with voice recognition software but people who can't use their arms doesn't require any any typing or minimal assistance from somebody else they still want one thing to keep in mind as this was back in one thousand nine hundred nine and the testimony that is undisputed in the record it they were they were still able to type and i think even more importantly the plaintiff here in mit's that she was unable to write an essential function that a voice activated computer could not fix she was still required to handwrite in her interviews when she was interviewing people notes about what these applicants are telling her and what her impressions are and there's no way that a voice activated computer could help her with that and in addition a voice activated computer would not be an effective accommodation in order to be reasonable if the parties agree the case law is it has to be effective it has to enable her to do her job she never requested a transfer but aside from that unilaterally transferring her would have again required an extension of the probationary period which be a violation of that federal regulation which actually is a different federally regulation excuse me it's five c f r three fifteen point eight zero two which says the probationary period is one year and may not be extended so that would have been a violation to allow her to transfer  in addition there's no doctor's note submitted suggesting that she should transfer and she failed to identify any vacant jobs that she'd be requite that she'd be able to do and  in order to uniformly enforce the federal regulations concerning probationary period that it's going to follow those regulations and discharge the employee rather than looking to transfer because it decides to transfer one person and it creates all kinds of problems down the road for for enforcing that federal regulation that it's required to follow doing any interviews because all of the interviews require handwriting and afterwards require typing up the assessment so handwriting and typing are very very largely what you do if you're given work my understanding is filing different documents and office type work in the hope that her carpal tunnel syndrome would improve enough she's taken off with the interview correct other asylum officers are assigned her all of her cases i think the easiest way in my view for this court to affirm the district court's decision is the element that she has to establish she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her asylum officer job with or without reasonable and just looking at her deposition testimony and the admissions in her opposition it's very clear that she could not do the essential functions of her job which are completing her cases in a timely manner typing and writing she admits in her deposition that she cannot type or write during this two month relevant period which is excerpts of record fifty one fifty four ninety seven and in her opposition her pleading concede that she could not do the essential functions of her job typing and cite she has the burden to establish this element and she has completely failed to do that just to show that she could perform the essential functions of her asylum officer job which is under spirited require  you with respect to the question you got to ask me about one of the problems i had is that the judge struck from consideration paragraph twelve now and plans declaration ok i can't brush my hair can't brush my teeth all but that's not to say that the next day or any time between february second and april twenty eighth i didn't change because the clothes the only permanent diagnos