fifteen client was drive it was driving into the parking lot of the police academy where he was about to begin a training program there was a handicapped placard hanging from his mirror that had been that had remained there a condition a congenital need condition both of which clearly intermittently impairing his mobility severely impairing his mobility during those flares they were continuous conditions they were in but he had excruciating pain during those through those circumstances however he always managed to work through the pain and you could never ask for accommodations he did not ask for accommodations at the police academy and he presented a statement through his physician that he was able to that he was fit to perform the duties of that training program not that that tense conversation in the parking  and if if that's the case how on earth is he qualify as a police officer who is near as i can tell has to be able to run one and a half miles in it leaves no water than continued to do his work even at times when he was suffering extreme pain and is it correct that under his version he had been using the placard several times a week at work yes that's correct that's what he needed or not well when he when he arrived for work in the morning he didn't know whether or not he would need it in the evening and so therefore he availed himself of the parking in the parking place in it's conditions were to flare so is it is it your position missy goal that the defense was legally prohibited from inquiring into this apparent tension between physical qualifications as a police officer and using a handicapped placard well the fact whether or not he was a qualified person within and with a disability does not affect the liability of the police department for pursuing its inquiry where we are they were in violation of the americans with disabilities and you do not have to be a qualified person with a disability you know order to be exempt from the kinds of inquiries and interrogations that you can subjected to west but what you know corey would have been permissible they could have done a lot of inquiries they could have was made they terminated him immediately and they feel to contact his physician there is an obligation on the employer where there is confusion about the nature of the about the nature of the alleged impairment or the need for accommodations or whether there's a need for accommodation there has to be competent medical evidence and it's incumbent upon the employer to seek out and obtain that  hamilton's a police employer permitted to test the integrity of its applicants absolutely but to do that they need to have competent medical evidence where the issue is whether or not the employee is telling the truth about a medical condition or the latest need to know whether he can keep a story straight because of the bare minimum well you resulted in his expulsion from the academy micio you spend a lot of time in your previous arguing that there was an unlawful that a call inquiry here under the eighty eight but it doesn't appear you praise that in the district court why haven't you waived that argument well your honor in the district court that was spelled out in the complaint well there was one paragraph in the complaint but in response to the motion to dismiss which is where that issue was litigated i looked through your briefs and i don't even see a mention of a medical examination much less the citation to the appropriate eighty eight why haven't you waive that argument well the what was made in the district court was an argument that was based on  instructor and had absolutely nothing to do with the ensuing investigation which also leaves out is that these statements in the come say she between lang and mr stanhope are started when  wife's or it was used for his wife something along that lines which obviously gave the impression that the any camp placard was not hit you then immediately contradicted himself when laying asked him why it was displayed and said that well actually he can use the collector to after that conversation with wanting santa for then met with sergeant camping outside the presence of blank instead again the handicap placard was for his wife's after that conversation he met a cannick went to the h r director to determine whether or not he had any special combinations on file and we kind of came or was very specific in saying i had no interest in what is disability was i just wanted to know whether he had any accommodations now after that case regarding his statements as to whether or not he had a placard and whether or not he needed one so that was the basis of the investigation and at no point was there any investigation into nor is it important whether mr stanhope or was in fact stable that was not be concern of the sheriff's office the concern was why he was making the ship statements which is why they pursued an investigation this investigation was done initially by a sergeant goldsmith who had subpoenaed his medical records and is in the handicapper application on the handicapped application indicated that he was permanently disabled and that he could not work any distance without the assistance of some sort of walking device after receiving these they decided to open a little bit more of a broader range of us the nation and they had sent for come in and talk with him it was at that point that he disputed that he was permanently disabled that the handicap placard was necessary for his euro and ultimately approved by the executive team of the sheriff's office nothing in the memorandum references whether or not they think he is capable of performing its job duties whether or not he actually has any condition or effect condition it's focused solely by on the fact that he was dishonest both in his statements to investigators and potentially in his effort that they should the handicapped placard in addition to that he also admitted that he often used a handicapped placard when he didn't have a medical reason to do that chairs police have it with jim an interest in ensuring that their officers have the requisite integrity and honesty in order to perform their job their public servants they need to have the trust of the public and of their fellow employees so it was a legitimate  basis to remove him from his position at the same time there is no evidence that that this decision was pretextual there's no inconsistency in their statements there is no arbitrary actions done by the sheriff's office there is no discriminatory intimacy that is shown through the investigation and without that any showing of any sort of inconsistency or dishonesty or to seat on the sheriff's office there is no reasonable juror that could conclude that he was terminated because of his disability and not because of his dishonesty now with respect to the direct violation evidence of intentional discrimination at the motion for class or occasion stage the district court level and while he had alleged disparate disparate impact in his pleadings and had dedicated a single sentence  law full inquiry or examination within his st many complaint he makes no reference to that allegation and presents no evidence that it was violated at the district court stage accordingly that argument has that weight and even if you were to entertain lawful medical inquiry there is no evidence in the record that shows the sheriff's office was concerned with the actual disability that mr senator may or may not head only with why his statements continued to contradict each other there was no examination done by a doctor's office that was hired by the sheriff's office there was no interview with his doctor to determine out the extent or one of the a v a those medical records were reviewed by a single investigator the sheriff's office and he ultimately concluded that they provided no information pertaining to any of his alleged disabilities effectively they had no bearing on the investigation whatsoever similarly with his conversations with the illinois secretary of state police it was silly to obtain the information from his application and no information was disclosed secretary please in order  prevail on under either one of those sections of the a da he has to show that some harm arose from them that there was some harm in some medical inquiry into his medical condition or some harm from disclosing his information to a  rather the evidence overwhelmingly shows that it was at the end his dishonest and i think it's important to note in the dishonesty that it occurred in his statement to lange in a separate statement to camac in a separate statement to an investigation with smith and to jura and then in a subsequent memorandum he submitted after his interview with those two so this is not a single instance in which the sheriff's office twisted up potential to show that there was a due process violation the senator points to not a single custom policy or practice of the sheriff's office that resulted in his removal in any event he can argue that he lost a liberty interest where he's currently still serving as a corrections officer with the that's correct scratch your honor and instead of or in this case had an opportunity to present his argument with respect to the brady violation in a moment of time and i in just wrap it up this last point even if he works through it if you allow me the extra time briefly he can wrap in a sentence or two they can judge even if he were to even taking a break violation that occurred the brady violation was merely used within the sheriff's office and it was i would submit to the court that you can't tell whether or not mr senator was truthful about his medical condition without competent medical evidence they determined that he was not truthful based on his subjective understanding of his medical condition is difficulty in trying to explain that and you can with his repeated objections that he was not a physician that he could not explain his that condition he could not explain his many conditions or  was that one condition wasn't selected by an over the other even though he objected repeatedly about here is about the need for competent medical evidence they failed to do that and