lifting that is simply not supported by the facts and i'll explain why in a moment the second error was ruling that her limitations were minor well failing to consider the significant restriction on the duration  altman could perform numerous major life activities in particular walking standing and sitting in the third area of the lower court made throughout its ruling was that it did not consider the overlap between different major life factor evidence that related to different major life activities to video it essentially dismissed certain activities does not meet your life activities or fail to recognize that certain age or life activity such as performing manual tasks and caring for oneself may overlap and evidence relevant to one indeed it is relevant to both standing sitting walking performing manual tasks caring for herself reading sleeping in in oregon under oregon law transportation is a separate major life activity recognized within the statute we also believe in this case that limitations on pushing and pulling bending twisting squatting carrying all either as a group or individual or major life activities  the primary turning to the lifting major life activity the that's where the court made the error as to temporary the court relied on the absence of restriction in one written medical document it doesn't say that there is no restricting as to lifting it simply did not list a restriction one way or the other as to lifting but that reliance on that document is she also stated as far as i know i have the same restrictions they have never been lifted for you all your time but i certainly think that the evidence creates a there was an ongoing process with your client i don't deny that there was not going interactive process but i believe there was a failure to provide the reason accommodation at a minimum of the chair th never received an effective keyboard she was i think this is not a case of a failure to engage in the interactive process that was going back and forth but part of the part of our argument on the failure to provide the there's a whole pretext going on about oh we need to get it through workers comp oh we need a prescription or the prescription you provide isn't sufficient it's not from a doctor or it's not current and it goes on and on and on doctor saying that's what you need rather than just something you personally i think if the chair had been provided judge your argument would be persuasive the fact of the matter is the chair is never provided there is simply no chair ever provided she's working out of the lawn chair in her home office hi can i stop there because i want to clear the record in my mind if i read somewhere that when she transferred from what minnesota yes she had these accommodations and she stored and she didn't bring them with she had some of the accommodations not all of the accommodations for us and stored i'm not sure the record establishes that such i in fact i don't believe it does it i was trying to figure that out too it just said that she had and i don't know what the term was read but she did have certain things right about the company she left them in storage and moved out to the new position and moved into a trailer where she started using the lines all right and there may have been some testimony about that but i don't believe there is testimony in the record at some of judge i mean there may have been deposition testimony about it but i don't believe it's in the equipment she needed to do the job for minnesota and left it there it kind of left me up in the air why did she bring this up with well i think i don't have an answer for that it's not in the record but i believe there is in the record evidence that the chair that she had in minnesota wasn't adequate itself that she fell out of it numerous times so i don't have a clear answer for you because it's not in the i don't believe it's in the records what is in the record is raises a question of fact as to whether the chair provided in minnesota which she fell out of was indeed in that an adequate accommodation but again it's not just the chair it's multiple it's other it's files i s basically office equipment that would have enabled her to work out of her home office that was the major accommodation provided in minnesota that she was allowed to work out of her own home office it's a question of fact as to whether it was provided here in oregon she believed she had her home office defendant contend she never was given a home office act goes to the whole causation issue which i don't really believe is before the court at this stage the the essence of that again the essence of the accommodation is not that no what temp was made judge graver but that the attempts that were made were either inadequate or failed to function properly or as to the chair for unreasonable reasons took too long  demonstrated by the fact that it was literally never provided i'd like to say the remainder of my time for vital if i may thank you there was no pretext in her termination simply has not to match her burden as showing a sufficient level of evidence that she was substantially impaired in a major like activity three reasons for that one she contradicts herself the perfect example of that is is are brought the actual copy of the draft park right that was taken and what function or she's right in the middle of the picture headed down right with her arms down straight up in the air so you have the one situation where she's totally contradicting herself she contradicts even what her doctors say as far as what her limitations are her doctors that we don't know the issue she has with taking care of herself we don't know the issue she has with reading and then she very self serving testimony that has no quantification and frankly it's unclear or everybody's testimony is self serving i mean that's sort of the definition of testifying on your own behalf but why wouldn't a jury be entitled to believe her statement limitation well for example with respect to walking at one point her testimony she says she can walk fifteen minutes and then i need a break well first of all there's no evidence in the record as far as what the average population how far they can walk without meeting up right here without taking a break and how many of us actually have to walk fifteen minutes to write in a day with respect how many times could you not take out the garbage who helped you i'm assuming garbage checking out our beaches or some form of a major life activity which we don't concede that but i'm going to guess my husband would tell you it's not for me it there's just not enough evidence in the record and the eleventh circuit has said you have to put in evidence of what the average population can do but there's the district court case that was  more than that without stopping well fifty to one hundred feet is a lot less than fifteen minutes for one thing and for example miss on one point said well sometimes i can only walk two blocks and i have to stop because i have insane pain well what does that mean or simply a major life activity and walking is it's a question of the direction of the extent yes lifting that maybe the average person doesn't have to lift more than twenty five pounds and maybe the average person doesn't have to walk more than five minutes at a time during the that that was a failure to really promenade her problems what's your response to that the response to that is this first of all with respect to the chair the one chair was her own personal lawn chair where she was allowed to work from home as a convenient she was allowed she had wooden chairs and storage she had a fax desk she had a headset she had a fed ex office chair in storage that she didn't get out because it was too expensive when she asked us for the chair we simply asked for an updated prescription she did not provide it at first she said i asked for the prescription and she said i didn't ask for the prescription she just didn't provide it and by the time we did order a regular chair for her by the time it came she'd been terminated managers work under budget this was an eight hundred dollars chair she want to compare to a sixty nine dollars chair that most everybody else it's not unreasonable for the employer to ask her to justify that require that you should bother asking you to remove the items that were in storage out something that is a part of the accommodation formula actually she never asked i think i found that out there in her deposition there's no indication in the records in the witnesses that she had let them know that that was in storage and that she asked for it to be brought out so they would have to know that first before they c just want to clarify a few points as to lifting lifting heavy objects may not be a major life activity but lifting isn't here the restriction at the time of terminations was established in exhibit number four and five ten pounds occasionally and given this court's ruling in thomson that i want to make sure that's clear on the record her testimony was during one nine hundred ninety eight she could lift ten pounds and up to thirty occasionally but at the time of her terminations in ninety eight that medical restriction exhibit four and five was ten pounds occasionally that's it that's important when getting to a comparison to thompson it's a court may have to  in addition there were also no caring at all nothing over her head her own testimony is that she couldn't carry anything so as to lifting and moving it there's there's a home office or not that relates to the terminations perhaps it doesn't relate to the accommodation issue as long as they continue to allow her to work from home whether it was a home office or not