policy that congress declared when they enacted the americans with disabilities law which was that the eight the americans with disability act seeks to assure equal opportunity full participation and economic self sufficiency for disabled employees and that is principally what was denied to john once in the decision of the district court when the court decided that it was plainly reasonable the accommodation of a leave of absence was plainly reasonable but it left john wentz without any income from may ninth two thousand and twelve until november of two thousand and twelve and similarly when the accommodation less than adequate was provided when he went back to work in november of two thousand and twelve three months later reoccurrence of the lesion occurred and he was again from february twenty first two thousand and thirteen until the end of that school year without income because he had exhausted all of the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement that provided him with sick days after requesting a write that his doctor in march of two thousand and twelve recommended that he extend the his medical leave in march of two thousand and twelve the doctor commented on his the size of his lesion and said that the physical movements associated with first grade teaching prevented him from returning to the classroom but the interesting thing about she  didn't specifically say that she extended to leave for any particular period of time and he didn't qualify ms able to go back to work means that we are we have to decide as one level if there's a question of fact about his ability at that time to perform his employment and what we're asking is whether we are right in understanding that at that time at the time of that doctor report the doctor would say that he basically was not ready to return to work if i would be permitted to put the that that note in context because and december thirteenth john wants requests  transfer to an open position in the sixth grade the superintendent denied that request without informing him that he had done so without any discussion ten days later than i was before the just to even knew that john requested the initial two week leave he was then on a series of two week leave until february of two thousand and twelve when the district changed the playing field entirely by offering him a paid leave until the end of the semester john signed the agreement clear it was a period when he was an april to work and we're trying to find out when the first doctor's report was able to go back to work the doctor report indicating he was able to go back to work did not occur until that in the context of the functional capacity examination which was delayed until july but  testified in her deposition that had been permitted to transfer to a higher higher grade which was his request back in december he could have returned to work in the higher grade in april april  twelve at the time when she didn't indicate at the time and the reason she didn't indicate the time was because the parties the district failed in its obligation to engage in the interactive good faith discussion that is accompanying the obligation to provide the reasonable accommodation what john once was told well he wasn't told anything because the does the superintendent until john asked four times december february april june of tw to be able to discuss the transfer to a grade which dr bents has testified would have allowed him to return to the position full time employment with reasonable accommodations accompanying assignment that so the district does in the record only reflect that dr would have considered clearing him he would have considered but that's the whole point of engaging the employer and the employee in an interactive good faith problem solving discussion in order to find out how to get john back to work that was not the environment that john faced at the with the new london public school system the environment that he face was entirely hostile to his status as a disabled employee starting with the superintendent's refusal to even consider a transfer to the upper grade ten days after he made that request without telling john that was the case secondly conditioning the extension of his paid leave on his resignation of his employment at the end of that term the comment that was made in the meeting that was finally held on july five two thousand and twelve that i attended that if a meeting to discuss reasonable accommodation that one of the first words out of the superintendent's mouth were if you if you can't work why don't you apply for social security disability that shows an intention not to accommodate john then after agreeing at our request to have an expert opinion about whether the the the functions of a sixth grade teacher and one is in the first grade to us to bend with the prosthetic devices he has would make more difficult the twisting the bending the crouching not going to be a problem in the sixth grade and then when saying he would abide by the by the recommendation of the expert he refused to provide the accommodation that the expert recommended which was to age and there's no required and then finally is that there's some ambiguity as to what whether the two weights were two separate aides from the one that was already in the classroom for the disabled child but more to the point you clients deposition acknowledge that the eight that were provided was satisfactory yes so to that extent and when we put on top of that that the law does not require the employer to provide the requested disability or the best or the best accommodation rather for the disability it requires a reasonable accommodation where you client is saying  john testified in that deposition this is that essay when i was six i surrendered to it i decided i was going to do the best i can so it was not satisfactory and even the the district superintendent an r person both admitted that they knew to aids in addition to the aid that was assigned to the student was what was required by doctor he was not provided that accommodation because because in his classroom environment although this issue was never fully explored the district if you have one aide in the classroom and one of the children requires a bathroom visit that is not in the classroom any longer so backpack or a tie his shoes there was a constant occasions when he would have to further injure his prost his stump by using a prosthetic device in a way that was harmful to  dr he's the person after reviewing john once his job responsibilities they were provided by the lawyer for the new london school district decided that two aides were required and you see in his notes that john didn't you think two ways was enough what was the appropriate accommodation was a transfer to a higher grade and ultimately that's what happened in june of two thousand and thirteen and if you look at the reasoning h our person finally decided to do that they said if we had to put three aides in a classroom we thought that that was on reasonable so it was easier to transfer him to the fifth grade and when he was transferred to the fifth grade he was transferred with one eight one of the one additional question right now  that as of this year john was successfully completed his year at a magnet school teaching math to sixth graders and next year he's going to be a point zero six teacher for drama and a point zero for teacher for mathematics because it finally after all these years and if he didn't have the idea he would have been fired in two thousand and twelve finally after all these years he has a supportive school system that is assisting him the new london board of education i think one issue that becomes clear is that the plaintiff is relying heavily on this public policy and i'm not sure that he has stated what the public policy is correctly  our congress has decided that there's a balance between the interest of the employee to work and the interests of the employer in operating a business and that's why congress has given and the courts have given the ultimate right of deciding accommodation that is reasonable for the district on the employer not the employee and i believe it's well settled in our case law that as long as the employee is provided a reasonable combination that the increase stops absolutely second of all i want to clarify the dates on which the there was this unpaid leave he was paid through may ninth of two thousand and twelve through the end of the school year which was about six weeks that was the on paid leave period and then was so sure that the end of the school year would have been about mid june so it was a four to six week time period and then he was again resumed pay at the beginning of the following school year because the board forwards the time for paid leave so he received another significant paid leave i think was about fifteen days at the beginning of the twelve thirteen school year and then he went on paid again from september that he could have and i think we need to look at this from the perspective of what the defendant knew not what a doctor may have testified during the testimony looking backwards right i mean i'll read to you what the march first two two and it's a specifically i saw john went in my office to nine twelve as well as one three one twelve his ongoing problems with a non healing ulcer on the left amputation stump which is likely due to overuse of his prosthetic leg interest to be out of work as he has to do much bending and moving as a kindergarten teacher and to focus on offloading pressure on the leg i will be seeing him for ongoing follow ups there is not a mention in that this that any accommodation would allow him to return to work this is this this is his position saying he can't work and if you look back at his medical notes they all say the lesions works then and the lesions worsening and then we get to this bacon position that he claims he could have done but it w two days later so it's impossible for a jury to conclude that based on what the defendant knew that that any other combination was reasonable you know  the district court does go into those later letter in april which talks a little bit more again oh he would be better suited for a position in upper grade level but still there was no connection made between transferring him to an opera grade level and him returning to work so there isn't there is there would have been no way for the defendant to know in this situation that he could have returned to work and and the fact of the matter is i think he concedes he couldn't work as a first grade teacher by april of two thousand and twelve there was no position available as a sixth grade teacher for him or any other place so i don't think on the record evidence that's before this court and given what the case law  about accommodation being clearly reasonable under the circumstances that any jury could conclude that he was not provided a reasonable accommodation and i would like to stress also that i think this concern about the under an indefinite period of unpaid leave you answered my question you said absolutely we never said that first of all when you say absolutely what's your source so i understand your question you're saying is an app is an unpaid leave a reasonable accommodation of can't return to work or providing him with accommodation of leave then we haven't terminated we're still allowing him the time to recuperate and come back to work that's the fact of terminations that you think is the key factor and yes light compare what we have here to your example you know you're dealing with a group of elementary age children you have to also take into consideration what the business needs of the employer is  and you know this wasn't a simple fix giving a swivel chair or you know giving them you know an extra point or you're talking about you know transferring a person into a position that is is new to them and it involves just ructions of students it involves disruption to other teachers who may be in those positions and a lot does not require the employer to create a position so i think what's missing here is that if he believes that his appropriate accommodation was a transfer well he needed to come there needed to be a position available to him and there wasn't one when response was that there was a second response is that an thousand the two aids didn't come up until the functional capacity examination in november of two thousand and twelve there was an interactive process that took place there everybody sat down i no one during that meeting  ever said that it was two additional aides that only came up in the course of litigation and i and again i don't know how you get around the fact that mr when said i was satisfied with the a  an employee may have who is just able it just needs to be reasonable and again under these circumstances the record evidence is pretty clear that  time before july or june thirtieth of two thousand and twelve could he ever turn to work that's that's clear and that kids law is also clear that there is no obligation to engage in an interactive process where the duties are not imminent so here you know once june of two thousand and twelve came he says ok i can return to work they sit down they engage in the interactive process they agree to do a for a leave in december of two thousand and eleven we provide that leave january we said we need ongoing information we need more information from you but we need you to keep us updated so he provides us with notes after kno every two weeks saying i still need to leave i still need to leave i still need to leave in june he says we don't have a release but at the beginning of next year i can come back so we all sit down at that point we agree to a functional capacity exam it's august we sat down in july the functional capacity exam was was not done until october and that was because the plaintiff wanted to use a specific doctor we agreed on the doctor didn't do it until october and then there are then the doctor that he chose didn't give us a recommendation until november first and he was back at work within two weeks  yes i did want to mention that it's important to note that john taught in the sixth two thousand and six seven seven eight something like that and when he was transferred to the fifth first grade he asked at that point in time not to be transfer problem is that the interactive good faith discussion did not start at that point in time had it started at that point in time then if we knew there was a refusal then other options could have been it's considered starting in january and we wouldn't had to wait until the summer july seven months later to have that discussion and then the unfortunate delays that occurred with trying to figure it out but what the district court did by finding that an unpaid leave of absence was plainly reasonable he for close to under  no there was no obligation then to consider what the accommodation was the john requested at that point in time so we never had the opportunity to litigate whether it at least a good basis it's plainly reasonable given dr bence's letter  in march after bence's april letter which you will be able to read in the record thirty four lays out pretty clearly that john cannot return to work because of the the work position that he's in so that combines with a deposition testimony that says had there been a transfer to an upper grade i could have considered it continues to be in john's best interest to be out of work because he cannot be transferred to an upgrade if you look at the medical notes which admittedly they did not have starting in january dr bents was talking about there was no opportunity have that discussion because john once had on three occasions by then come to the new london born said i cannot work in this great because i'm getting a lesion i'm the end of my stump having to engage in all this physical activity they asked in january for evan for evidence that would support his claim that no april sixteenth supports the claim in response to the january twentieth or twenty seventh letter from the from the district but then the district went off on a whole different course of action offering this paid leave and then they demanded his resignation then we're back on track with oh you need to provide us with medical notes to support your disability what she had that the district had that note on april thirtieth on may third they wrote to him and said oh you need to ply for f m l a which is the beginning of his unpaid leave they didn't say why don't you come in john let's talk about your your the physical disability that you had that prevents you from working in first grade what i'm saying is that the they had an obligation to engage in that discussion and