actual or perceived impairment whether or not the impairment substantially limited a major life activity the record here meets that standard because it permits the conclusion that westmead took prohibited action here so there's a there's a few key pieces that i'd like to highlight there's evidence that jarvis believed that key either had anxiety disorder or another serious unspecified medical condition that precluded that she disclosed mental health history on her application i think the really important point is that she she disclosed anxiety in the key meeting before the decision maker terminated her so it's not clear from the record whether teresa jarvis had access to the job applications but it is clear as gyrus admitted that kean told her that she had anxiety when keane requested intermittent and as as chartist as jarvis explained in her testimony the requests for intermittent leave led jarvis to believe that keane had a medical issue were keen could not work her job duties and determination paperwork also reflected that jarvis concluded keane was unable to complete her job duties after he reported a medical condition and the other important evidence that shows that the jarvis believed keane had an impairment w st of all if an employer is covered by a formal a and the a t f a as was the case here then an employer has an obligation to consider what what are its legal responsibilities under both statutes when presented with a situation like this and i think this is actually in a factual way distinguishable from the sort of general general  and our view is that a jury could so find that kean had a serious medical condition that preclude her from working that happened immediately upon a request for lee and jarvis terminated her the next day  but also it would just add at another point in case there are concerns about whether this would broaden regarded as coverage i emphasize that congress meant meant the definition of jus ability could mean the regarded as wrong to be broad when amending the a in two thousand and eight and coverage is just a way to get your foot in the door as an employer as a plaintiff there are many other there are many other steps that an employer must take in order to establish liability and employers have access to defenses including the business necessity defense so i don't think it is inconsistent with the given that congress underscored that that the definition of disability should be construed broadly are you and so you're just to boil it down your best evidence that this was a discrimination regarded as termination came quickly after this discussion about serious anxiety well i don't think it's not just the speed you're on i think i think a jury could deem jarvis's reaction quite drastic although keane requested intermittently even it seemed from the record that jarvis didn't understand that that was the nature of the request but a jury could find any reasonable immediate request for for a for a medical release and that and that jarvis  to leave the workplace immediately as well and that jarvis terminated keane without allowing her the opportunity to provide the medical risk because king was terminated the very next day and so  hearing that would be the appropriate remedy yes that's correct your honor and i would like to point to another kind of evidence that i think is useful here and that details in the record that support it and friends of pretexts which i think is also something that would distinguish this from from a maybe a typical family retaliation claim so is this court explained in ross versus campbell soup pretext pretext evidence may tend to show that an employer regarded employee as having an impairment and here again that close temporal proximity that i described earlier jarvis is swift action of terminating one day after she decided that kean had this significant condition precluding work that is evidence o jarvis three years later in her deposition that the reason was also the cation of documents and that type of shifting justification is classic evidence of pretext which this court has said may show maybe the type of evidence that shows that  so and that's the only issue i think the district court decided no other words if we were st on the ground to remember back for then consideration of the legitimate pose a legitimate explanation by the employer and the protection else in response you're right your honor the district court only focused on the issue of coverage which as i said is just that st hurdle to get through the door and but i do you think that this because of the nature assuming that it's justification that they offer her is that falsified documents that there is evidence that that was pretextual and although i mentioned that a limiting principle of recorded out its coverage is of bottle i did just want to focus on this idea of an unspecified impairment so we think that there's evidence that jarvis believed keen had a specific impairment anxiety disorder but even if jarvis believes he had an unspecified impairment regarded as coverage would extend there because otherwise an employer could fire any employee because of a suspected medical condition and that again is consistent west's congress's directive that that definition of disability shall be construed in favor of broad coverage and if no further questions i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for about oh thank you mr elliot for the a this is a nursing home facility in nashville suburban natural that nurse doris did not know the teen had any disability at the time of her terminations and was just cut to the chase the respectfully disagree we think the district court used really mrs king's own words and her own actions in this case as i was about to say the most important fact that this case is that response was not well i'm like some accommodations or well i'm like you to do this for me because i have this visibility her response immediately was i want to go back to work and the trouble with that is this star has now been presented with a certification of the health care provider that this woman needs a certain amount of unspecified leave for these flare ups which are not specified and then so she says i'm even doctors move from this doctor releasing you to return to work  that they regarded her as having at least some inherent based on all of that record evidence i think the trouble with that judge down on is that the facts of the case don't in right there in other words we have more from the employment application documents and those very specific questions that mrs king had to answer about medical conditions that she had and she's answering all of those in the negative so yes she told them from an eighty eight framework she she been asked that she needs accommodations she wants to work every shift and of the son she wants to start work immediately she can work differently shifts this way this lady presents a when you read ready her deposition which ought to look she wants to work to her credit in this case judge though this lady is a work she wanted to work as soon d as she was told that she did not qualify for civil and for whatever in her employment application documents what she told the nurse jarvis and then you know to get it and the reason why this timeline is it's overrated to the point of being really twenty four hours is because when mr obvious is presented with this return to work and she has a question or two about it she says that's our policy or that's our protocol to ask a question or to the doctor to make sure we understand what's going and that was the reason they gave for four terminated but there's no proof that the average lives that doesn't depend on somebody testimony from their client rather than not can try to do that in a better way you know she she presents within the gene she is not allowed to go in or of them away she needs or at least to return to work to preserve to protect really westmeath place in her if she has something happen to her later she you know she doesn't present the release on the back that the note cannot be found is really of no consequence we have the doctors on testimony saying no i didn't fill out a release she needed to come see me she didn't do it i mean if all of the facts were changed around yeah maybe miss teen and the others even have a case here but they don't really unfortunate thing is here this teen sped up this process herself and tried to present something as a bill of goods that wasn't true and wasn't correct and when she's called on it by mr jarvis and d indianapolis got got me in to see the doctor got in a return to work slip and driven back in a couple of days we wouldn't be here but unfortunately that's not the set of facts we have we have a my it would take a couple a day absolutely i think mr arbus his testimony was i was not going to fire her if it took her a day or two to get this return to work note to me the fact is that miss being presented  recall what she said her deposition but the fact is when you have really the only person who doesn't have a dog in this fight is not the u s c is not ms bean is not with me please it's  and mr elliot just just you know just from my notes here i show that the record says that wes may tell kane that if she did not have the letter about the next day they would let her go due to her being unable to do the job now that that seems to be west and because i'm going to my notes i can't give you the records citation but obviously you can jurors and there's a letter by westmeath that says cave was terminated because she was unable to post her job duties and so those contradictory statements seems to me the determination has that was a document presented to the state department of labor for unemployment purposes and as ms jarvis testified that she did not want to really kick her while she was down and did not woman an opportunity for unemployment benefits and if you put down ordering altered documents altered a medical record then that is very much but in unemployment benefits in jeopardy for this woman but westmead was not in fact true i don't think it is i don't think the fact is is not true the fact is she's unable to perform job duties it's true she's unable or job duties because she submitted this she's not submitted the paperwork well that totally goes against that statement about wanting to go back to war and so you've got this document is that unable or job duties which is that if we correct and again they did not want to jeopardize they were been object to her getting her employment ok mr elliott we thank you for your argument you're now time just really didn't have much of an opportunity to get in so i will even though you had a time if he has a question that will permit him to ask that question oh thank you  i'm good thank you thank you mr cain your rebuttal thank you your honor i'll clarify at the outset because i think it's an important point on the record the evidence regarding that alleged false document so the only evidence that there was a false documents as as judge doctrine noted teresa jarvis is testimony jarvis claimed that she spoke to conversation and in fact dr house call logs from keane's medical records doesn't reflect any conversation between jarvis and the doctor and it doesn't reflect any conversations about jarvis and that that was the reason for the terminations and i also would like to just revisit those terms official terminations documents that stated different reason and that alleged incredible that an employer would would put a reason that's not the actual reason on on those official documents especially since some of them were internal documents that would be for the internal file another thing i just wanted to clarify and that i think goes back to an issue regarding jarvis's reaction so mr elliott was explaining kean expressed an interest to go back to work when she's told she wasn't eligible for leave under of him away the district court did not acknowledge keane's testimony that she did not expect to be paid for i she were to receive a leave but it certainly it's not unreasonable when she learned she couldn't receive intermittently that she would prefer to work rather than an alternative such as alluded to it the idea that it was reasonable for jarvis to request a medical really when keane presented the optimal a certification no i certainly wouldn't deny that employers w often request a work release when employee requests leave however it here the leave requested was intermittently of one dollar to three dollars days per month and that's what the family certification sad and so that makes his reaction seem less reasonable and a jury could view it as such that that her reaction was drastic and suggested that she mistakenly thought that he had a  serious medical condition that preclude her from working and it argument boils down to the idea that that could be that could amount to an impairment and that jarvis terminated her on that basis and if no further questions we asked this court to reverse it just a court's decision because the record raises a genuine issue of fact as to regard it as covered thank you thank you we think the party is slow there are arguments written and oral the matter is submitted and we will issue an opinion in due course