your honour's looking at the record looking at the record like most favorable to my client and considering the record on a whole as a whole and this is also  relevant to their argument they had when there was some sort of waiver with respect to the documents supporting summary judgment again it is up to this court to look at the documents to determine whether or not they are miscible whether they are reliable whether they are used but only if you've raised that issue with the district court it's not up to the court to make arguments for either side and we're here to review what was done by the district court and i looked very carefully through the record and didn't see anywhere before the district court that you objected to the admission of those tack humans on hearsay grounds and you said they were there were lies in them but that doesn't signal to the court that you're objecting to them on the basis of  hearsay it's correct that at this point you're considering the record you know of and that's why i made the comment that i did because i don't believe it's appropriate to them but you didn't raise it with the district court so we do consider things to know because it are evidentiary issues for an abuse of discretion but there's a waiver as well and if you don't raise something below you can't raise it for the st time before us so why haven't you waived your argument about the admissibility of those records because it is up to this court to review the record as a whole it cannot ignore the law if they put in a statement some absurd statement you know i can't even think you hit you still have an obligation to to claims that the performance evaluations were unfair and didn't accurately reflect his work performance but t and the issue of could a reasonable jury ever conclude are similar and when we're looking at pretext arguments we're looking at timing we're looking at the history of employment or looking at how others are treated differently and so forth so in this case there would that's what we would look to for any help to help us his race sexual orientation or age the evidence there there i could not find anything directly related to those things i could find evidence related to his his just ability and didn't get my aunt specifically at met during this deposition that he didn't know what to screen minatory reasons supervisor miss forster had i i believe did i believe there that is is what the testimony was but it is but again from you know all science from your own client who's bringing this claim claiming race discrimination gender discrimination and he admitted he did not know what is all you can say is i am being treated differently then my fellow employees it is up to the employer to to indicate in what why why they are in fact being treated differently than other employees and here there is evidence that he was treated differently than you know non japanese indicates nat's the civically not with specific individuals no no but he did testify that he was treated differently then his cook words meaning the other attorneys the other staff attorneys with whom he worked in there there's  situated employees were non japanese american or so for something about exam that a complaint as an evidence you can't rely on allegations in the pleading as evidence and summary terms of his disability a terms of his arthritis his gout in two thousand and eleven he had a severe attack of gout in the office and here is co workers who wheeled him apparently into a meeting and he was disciplined special keyboard he was granted a dictation device for no it's true that he wasn't given an extension of deadlines but  the medical node in support of this accommodation didn't indicate that extended time was necessary so where did he provide evidence that the accommodations that were to interrupt you must tell me but it was january th of two thousand and fifteen that he specifically requested the accommodation so just complaining alone isn't enough but they request for an accommodation was made in january of two thousand and fifteen and judge rovner is question was why weren't the accommodations which they did make sufficient what evidence is there that those accommodations that were made for your client were not sufficient they had gets into the issue of the the the the process they had the air act requires which is that the employer the employee and the doctor communicate with one another if there are issues if there are questions and there doctor i don't understand employer the employer has an obligation to to engage in the interactive process with the employee and and with the doctor if there are any medical questions about what is what is  says that the employer has to communicate with the actor where there would be all sorts of hipaa issues going on other things of course when you fill out a request for accommodation you are waving you will usually in the in my experience your waving your hip rights and you are permitting your doctor to fill out forms and talk to the employer gets i'm not suggesting that hipaa should be overlooked by eddie by any means like case thought you have that says that an employer has to have an interactive process with a doctor once in a ploy asks for reasonable accommodation i'm not aware of any such case i am not aware of any such case by extra believe the interactive process requires that if there are any questions whatsoever then act those need to be resolved whether it be through a discussion between the employer in the employee or between the employer and that doctor whether the employee needs to go back and get additional information from the doctor himself you know they ask what the interactive process  represent in my department of financial and professional regulation after receiving negative performance evaluations from three years of being placed on a corrective action plan that has been renewed numerous times the department just charge m consistently positive before miss forster and if so will that be some evidence in your view that the  evaluations prior to the two thousand and twelve evaluation when the supervisor forester reviewed him for the st time alone however that wouldn't be relevant here because the court has explained that prior positive i was performance evaluations are not relevant the relevant inquiry is looking at performance evaluations that were more recent and occurring at or near the time of the adverse employment action and here for three years leading up to its ultimate discharge with the with the department and straightest back it consistently received poor performance evaluations and again had to be placed on a corrective action plan that was renewed no evidence of a similarly situated individual outside of his protected class who is treated more favorably even should i was it clear at the district court which of those theories he was pursuing w anything like that and then who is being treated more favorably than he was even under the totality of the evidence standard mr cheney sakhi his claim fails again there were several years of poor performance evaluations corrective action plan leaving to be renewed several times because he was not making sufficient improvement documented instances where mr is exactly delayed in processing cases having documents deadlines even know the corrective action and required him to meet all their minds or if he wants to request an extension of the deadline within a reasonable time so under either theory either the mcdonnell douglas framework early two months later i'm in this court has held that suspicions training alone is often not sufficient to establish the causation element for retaliation and here there is again over two months which weighs heavily stretching over several years what impact should the fact that miss forster removed him from the c h p plant shortly after he filed his e was generally not meeting her expectations and so there's no evidence that is performance of you know started to improve and january two thousand and four that all of the work the problems that he's been having with managing his case load i'm proceeding with cases you know cleaning organizing the office those sorts of things there's no evidence that all of those had been solved and he was now some  in january two thousand and fifteen the department responded and granting in part his request for any combination providing him with accommodations an ergonomic keyboard a cheap recorder as well one of the most important points here and that is that he was taken off of the corrective action plan and they had a meeting on the th and he was not told that he would be subject to further just a plan and he was not told at that time there anything that he would be terminated in fact he was told that in various areas he had improved i think it would be looking at the record in the light most favorable he could assume that he was taken off because he had improved i think  accuracy of most of them but even so he was taken off he was proceeding there's no indication from the record that there was further just a plan there was for ther anything and the next thing he knows he is terminated and if you do your honors look to eight thousand one hundred and sixteen you will see that even though in writing he did make that accommodation request as we've said he did indicate that he was he having this disability he asked for forums and he apparently was not given the