did that back whether she was qualified individual per her job or did we have to take the fact that because they let her stay on that by definition meant that she would qualify for  back every single written and i mean yes she was given a raise but she had a negative review and i guess that's part of the question are we supposed to well let me focus let me focus further on that because i look at the concise statement of facts which was submitted by defendants and number forty four than forty minutes consecutively for on site reviews assigning by only to such providers would have been less than a week of full time work per month and your response didn't dispute that so why can't the district court simply say well that's a given i can move on from here and if you can only do two percent of the providers you're not qualified for because that was what the restriction was what do you mean well you didn't dispute the conclusion their conclusion was that as they understood it she could have done less than a week of full time work per month yes and you said that's not true because she could stop but your concise counter statement doesn't say anything about that and indeed it is judge collins raises not really clear to me that that's the argument was offered up to the district court well because they were promising their not sure how the employer is posed to take bad if instant so two minute break or five minute break that's one thing i've been so i have power brake pads quite another it's not like we have lots of rest stops on the highway here you can pull over and walk around practical i don't know why the court should take that as a given if you haven't contested the concise statement of fact that raises should the court do that work for you point you know make this argument that there was a way for her to access all of the others i viewed it as almost the silence that it was sort of like look i can only drive yes where i mean even if there were record evidence that was before the district or where your client actually said that or you know either in her deposition testimony or you point it out with something else of america so st i'd like to kind of address this take a break you move closer move the microphone closer to you i really can't hear what you're saying sorry your honor can you hear me a little bit better now that's better thank you i'd like to address this thing to break accommodation was raised for the  it is it is it your concise statement of facts act forty five says anglin says c t a could not guarantee a limit of forty minutes consecutive driving particularly given traffic cop responded it was particular way because it seems like you have not argued that those performance deficiencies bieber not qualified not a qualified individual  i mean but the nine months was you know they initially told her if you don't i'm back and you're going to be emanating he won't have a job and then you know they let her stay away for a while and then she comes back with a performance plan that's kind of a glide path to riches germination so it kind of looks like just a slow roll planned towards determination at least on  irrespective of whether nine months alone is enough to get you there we have all of these intervening actions that occur between initially telling her that look we are we need to replace you because we have providers that need to be evaluated and you yourself are connection i has to go about it in on february rd two thousand and sixteen england scheduled a meeting with fox it sounds like as i understand the facts england had england i guess that's a question being one when england emailed her to set up a meeting the fact that it there was i mean was that unusual when he would have had other meeting at the normal worth or is she was that oh wait this is the supervisor ok and then my nd question new england testifies later or states later that that meeting was going to be a determination is there something in the