notify her rights it's understood at the stage now that she was an employee summary judgment b p moved to say that it is not required to provide her notice because he is an independent contractor the court cited this issue is not a person here i believe the ethically rights belong to the person and she was the one who is considered to be the employee by the court and this is this is really uncontested at so this goes to the question of whether b p a was the primary employer or the secondary employer well you know if there is a serious question even if we don't know for sure who's the primary  benefits bad that is what m b o was doing but ultimately that it is a factual question whether you can say whether primary employer or secondary employer and this one really only for myself that regardless even if it were required to give notice as the primary employer i have difficulties seeing that there is willful interference with the rights which is what the statues of out doesn't say willful failure to give notice and says willful interference and that i i just don't see any fact that that supports the idea that the v a willfully into feared with her right especially because she knew more about this area of law than probably anybody that is now in this virtual room for the record i she is extremely competent in the area of reasonable accommodations she that point they should have heard you know what i had at that point or at least after she found her paperwork they should have spoken to her well but it doesn't really matter because they argument you said if there's not a violation there cannot be a willful violation of the district court here found there was not a violation because she because e p a prevailed on it's a permanent defense that she was no longer entitle to her position that affirmative defense were not challenging that on appeal so that this report didn't ever make a conclusion about whether she was prejudiced or the  yeah and says that that the defendants did not either know or showed their direct reckless disregard for whether their conduct was prohibited by statute they consulted with said that being said sam harris well i'm still on the evidence presented at trial shows that defendants did not either know or show reckless disregard for whether their conduct was prohibited by statute that's looking at the there was one there was no discovering it true she had only limited appointments of counsel so he got counsel for trial and then they were out right after so they didn't really have a no one done they were done with it query whether or not that destroys a notice claim that she understood she took intermittently even she he knew that not only because of her broad experience and reasonable accommodation law but also her understanding of the as she can prosecute her right at trial in between there she retained a rd counsel david ritz who was able to successfully do the the summary judgment motion mind you ninety five dollars an hour over a three and a half year contract  nature of miss alston's disabling condition it was not her hearing loss in this case it was workplace anxiety her inability to get along with her direct supervisor share him markley mental labor manager hampton found a contracting action reverse the m b o relationship these things stressed her out to the point where she could not return to work in this point i think is very important for employers rough and i was for it if you were unable to do your job you have intermittently as for the employee who can do all of their jobs some of the time mrs olson could do all of her job none of the time once this anxiety became debilitating and again we did challenge whether or not it was an actual al right to be restored where you have no record of twelve hours every week doing whatever task you think you can do especially when you're disabling condition is workplace things i know that's an issue of st impression of we believe of the eight employee leave work go get better and then come back to a job that waiting for them missiles in his trade can play to the americans with disabilities act brave with the family medical leave act or a restored to telework at that point but could not hello or not do any of your got unction if you are able to come back to work and meet with us she couldn't do that and you know it was finally the time when she was able to come process she couldn't meet was got hit in the supplemental labor manager she said that with against the advice of her or her doctor and she still couldn't feel it's sharon helman her direct supervisor again another knew or was reckless in misclassifying missiles and now the judge me all findings regarding the relationship between m b you and b p a now as mr hagar has recognized it's often did take some intermittent leave she actually wanted to take more more she wanted to actually work more during really the point in time that's important in this case is the period of m again we're not disputing that she was able to do her job and that's what the judge found at the end in june she couldn't do her job anymore that was the burden that the u there is nothing in this a finding the fact that there's a lot to say that she couldn't do her job earlier in fact we believe it was the failure to notify that actually affected her throughout this lead because she believed she intermittently as she wanted she wanted to be able to return to were she wanted to be able to have a trial work period i want to address the other issues briefly the only reason i will raise a cruel tolling of the show the injustice in