illing in the county where she resided she became employed in that position in september of two thousand and fourteen and subsequently developed breast cancer and august of two thousand and sixteen after she developed a breast cancer in august of two thousand and sixteen she had some complications as a result of the chemotherapy that to be able to eat the war part time from home or to come in the evenings and work after hours because her meals system had been affected by  negotiating be unable to stay at home and take care of her elderly parents and work for the count as whale and she was hired on that basis without understanding it and a well if she had been hired with the under same understand it that was part of of ms os job description if she was hired with that understanding i did it and they're just not comparable you're on  theory that another was another person would who had been hired without that that understand it would have done more at the office but it was not part of hotness i was job but if she was hired with that understanding and miss lane to the extent sheet i mean that was part of her job was to do was to do the part of mr bob's job that would that she mishap do the things that most have would have been would have done a shit good ired to to come in the office it's just no comparability whatsoever her racist is irrelevant to that lack of comparability accommodations for the fact that she was not going to be at work or when when they care about the part time individual or which miss my and see if she came in and trained the lady on taking the complaints on only at home because she already had it set up on a computer every night she hit she backed up out of these accounting records by the billing on her computer and she already had the information on the laptop for which she could was there interacting with the public are communicating information to her f o o ok and i just want to ask one follow up question i saw on your in your you know i think a lot of this this case is about and you allowing her to work from home so while he may help purty india it's like he was listening to her he never took into consideration her disability he never took into consideration whether he could actually  will work with her and allow her to work part time when he never because i think those planes shed some light on the other council i have a quick question it's amazing to me we have two groups that can't can't agree on when there's blades f m l we go to figure out what what the what the record is of that well we made a statement in our state  you want but i know from this a family timing can be very very complicated i'm just you know are there are other employee records or human resources department records in that we have as part of the summary judgment record that we can five pointing to the fact that she had failed to come to work that they'd back never reported to war or call it wasn't until eight days later that any information was received a and that was council on getting an awful lot of background noise and having trouble understanding what's going on that it where you are sounds like a snap sounds like a construction zone nothing here your honor ok now that whatever you do whatever you  bed she said she she got up d for only about thirty minutes per day and was only able to sit for about five or ten minutes of that of that's not a person who can perform the essential functions of a faul avoid summary judgment that's impermissible no reasonable juror could be expected to believe that you were able to perform all this remote work even a war part time work plan is now saying she's ready willing and able to perform that disability had anything to do with the the termination as opposed to her failure to meet the legitimate expectations fuller and certainly didn't show that that that was pretextual in fact in her sworn testimony and as so security hearing she says the judge paul bent over backwards to assist or she said that that d for long periods of time she was there  ous giving to try to help then he paid her even though she wasn't there to her quote from a deposition testimony he described these payments as gilts and as gifts money even though she was working they gave her a the likewise with respect to the rachel discrimination fine while miscellaneous certainly there were a class she can show that she was meeting her employer's legitimate expectations for of cour  only needed intermittently when these treatments occurred a short period there after and yet he couldn't get in touch with his testimony was despite repeated attempts even going to her  but also the only evidence that she offers even indirectly is this comparison with ms saw the secretary did both secretary who as a as a component of her initial employment or comparison is that scary and that rigorous standards of similarity are required to create an inference of discrimination that simply doesn't exist here the mislaying spree went into some detail out this that is when she discussed with him wanting to come back to work part time either in the after hours are working remotely from hob and finally