it doesn't allow for multiple layers of coffee and the result by doing so is that it in circumvents the ability of employees like this evidence to take reasonable medical leave when when they call them and  here i think it's important to point out that this record didn't find that the sevens hadn't provided actual notice in found that she didn't comply with their policy and there's really a difference because the lobby quater them to provide and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave so if it's a two to par usual and customary why wouldn't i would that be just fine i think the other concern your honor is that the intent of the notice provision is to provide notice of intention to take them out lately she's required to give notice after only lead in granted it out on dates where the specific letter of the policy was not in here so it's our position that the company shouldn't pick and choose when to inforce  something that suggests a discriminatory motive of the fact that someone gets fired or actually when in most situations the employer doesn't follow is a different a different route that really has nothing to do with with the underlying motivation what cases ever said lack of a final warning is pretext as opposed to just under the company's policy the one in january should have rolled up but there was a reply up even on the ground form that purportedly was was prepared and was going to be given to her and more importantly there was no urgency the st thing i want to do is acknowledge my partner catherine short who did an exceptional job briefing on this case she would be arguing this case this morning but she's at home with a new baby so i'm here in  judge smith you mentioned the heiress in case i am familiar with that case and i think it is particularly poignant in this situation because the ruling in that case where your honor was involved was a firm symptoms in the right knee are due to her reactive arthritic changes i believe working in the garden may have your state in the knee and then notes from the july th point and say nothing about the me injury see i don't believe so  early related she would say that the only thing that she reported was that for me had given up which doesn't buy a tear or reactive arthritis and then receive confirmation from her doctors saying that no it had nothing to do and i think it's also an important point is that even after her term in the nation ms evans went to see her doctor and she complained about being fired and her doctor never changed  her that she has never claimed those absences were related to this day she had an opportunity in her deposition to say that she had an opportunity in the declaration that she submitted to the court to this was an adequate she could have gone to her doctor either before or afterwards and she never did that and the reason that she got a half point on the berber nine just have to identify any similarities situated employee who had attendance record left or what not fired she even admits that she you know her own words i went over on occurrences and they had to treat everyone the same appendix eighty seven and appendix one hundred and forty that tells her and explains the ruling thirty day policy she claims that there were two counts which counsel would you explain to me the rolling thirty day certified for two full f m l a days per month and so if she took one if i'm l a day in the end of october and then she took another full of m l a day at the beginning of november she would have exhausted those two full days during that rolling thirty day timeframe so there's not a hard cut off just because you turn the calendar you look at a thirty day timeframe because that's what her doctor certified say during a thirty day timeframe during then you get to call days and two half day explained a thirty day mill a policy to her and she admitted there deposition that she knew about that there'd be no policy is it what is that the benefit of having a thirty day rolling policy rather than a calendar month pol oh in some ways it can actually benefit the employee because you could have a situation where you have a lot of absences at the beginning of the month but then you don't have any later on but then you turn the calendar in and in the event then you would really low so it depending on the situation could be actually beneficial to do the employee have a rolling thirty days as opposed to a hard and fast you know these are because of a lack of sufficient evidence to cast doubt on that were given nondiscriminatory reason and in the bar was made dakota clinic case just woken us indicated that shifty explanations were insufficient because the employer never wavered from its view that you know personal difficulties were the central reason to be sure he had other problems but never shifted his focus the main one perhaps using different words to describe and in this case we have never waiver from the position that she exhausted all of her or that she had violated the attendance policy the get out of jail free policy if you read it it doesn't apply to