to the federal court by virtue of the fact that we had diversity in the case and that fact is stipulated to and our claim was always been based on fia and on that basis we proceeded with our case it's our position that  proper and appropriate notice of her disability she followed the procedures that were set forth in the company's policy manual not only when she had her cancer surgery but when she came back she notified her interim manager she notified her direct manager and she notified the human resources manager that she still like cancer she showed the human resources manager at the scar on her neck and she said that she was going to need ongoing and future radiation therapy and she disabled at that point she disabled then she was disabled at that point under the jensen case under the johnson case as a matter of law if you have cancer you're considered to be disabled under fia and you're entitled to leave for medical treatments and surgeries she's only going to leave if she's schedule some time in the future some additional therapy radiation wasn't she had ever aviation either she didn't know when or when that would take place no but she gave them notice and the of law requires that she give them notice not only through their manual but also the law and that the employer and her work together to schedule the time subject over the resources it's assumes it's is it's specific enough to to trigger the interactive process correct right and you're telling us that it was specific enough to trigger the interactive process yes it was she does because she gave them notice that she required future ongoing medical treatment that she still had cancer and that she is going to be required to have this radiation iodine therapy you know what i may supposed to do at that point if she  i'm back but i may need i even i will i'm going to have a future treat what exactly is their obligation at that point at that at that point the employer had notice of her condition and had an obligation to have an interactive meeting with her what was he condition when she had had the surgery it was successful she was one hundred percent she was back to work without restriction so it does i get it really it's that i may need some radiation at some point in the future but i'm once the employer had noticed that she required this future ongoing medical treatment with the radiation iodine therapy they had a duty to meet income for with her and set up a time for when she could go have the surgery subject and whatever medical requirements she had to so i have to soraya help your case if at all part of soraya versus univision radio how does that help your case if i don't i believe it does by virtue of the fact that in that case the employee said that they were not absolutely certain of the exact date when they were coming in and when they were going to be required to have the surgery and that it was going to be in the near future but they met when conferred with the employer and that's what we did here their manual also only requires that we give you've had plenty of time the manual is located at a r e two five one two by two and that manual says that when you have a medical condition where you believe you need to work with the company for accommodations that you get together with the h r manager that's what the manual says and that's what she did she got together with the h r manager notified her that she was going to require this medical treatment in the future and that she needed to have time to take away from work to go have the treatment so she complied with her internal there were two individuals of the a lose in the back that made the decision to terminate correct yes but we also believe that ms murray was also involved in that process so believing it is one thing but what's in the one of the the district court fine well we provided evidence she was involved ms murray assisted mr avila those he gave her notice that he was terminating her she assisted in preparing the script that he was used to terminator he had ten she attended the meeting when our client was terminated she was involved in that process of supplying support is not quite the same as being influencing the decision maker well she had affected the decisions of the decision maker by virtue of the fact that under the manual as a human resources manager she was given notice of our client's condition and the need to have future medical and ongoing medical treatment for her cancer and by virtue of the fact that she was the one that the employee was going to work with and the h r person under the manual was working with her in the company the knowledge that ms marie had would be imputed to the company under the law that we cite in our brief and in addition by virtue of the fact that the company assigned her the responsibility to act as the enter the their representative ever agent between the employee and the company she also had a duty to disclose the information murray was one of the decision makers because she was involved in the process and because she was involved in the decision making process that she was either a decision maker or she was one that was there that had an obligation to influence that decision and that's based on just the fact that she supplied certain assistance is that correct well for scripts etc well and based on her management function and also what she's required to do under the policy man she doesn't make decisions to terminate council know that she supplies the information and has a seizure and is made by via lose and mack but she's involved in the decision making process because she had an a b is that because as an intermediary you think she had a duty to to disclose this information yes and what and what information was she supposed to disclose if she would disclose to them the medical condition of our client and her request for an accommodation right and so so so this kind of goes back i think to judge ses where we started that the medical condition was i've had this very serious diagnosis i have the surgery i'm back i'm one hundred percent and i'm going to need some of my cancer is metastasized and i'm required to have radiation iodine treatment and i'm going to need to take time off from work to have that treatment because i'm not cancer free she was not cancer free when she came back there were doctors no released her to come back to work so there was nothing that impaired her ability when you have cancer and you need medical treatment one of the accommodations is to allow you time off from work to get your medical treatment is that was it ever the case that the need for future treatment was more than  an assertion that at some point i will need future treatment it's never say here's the schedule it's going to or that it started or it's going to start next month or in three months well if the evidence that we put in the record show that chair the cancer treatment in december of the same month that she was them she was definitely going to have to have that treatment but did she say even if it was an exact date did she say soon next month anything like that i believe the record shows that she notified them it was coming up and that she was going it was and it was something very very serious where we seem to be focusing on this point so i'm not let reserve your time when you come back if you've got your record cites for that point to at least from my notes that would be very helpful ok ok thank you knowledge or the need for future treatment i think what is clear here in the record is that there was no information provided by the appellant as to when this was going to so to suggest that there was something earlier of process is just not supported by any facts in the record what is in the record is a very receptive need more treatment when you know what's going to happen it's going to be fine if you need time off this line to suggest that there was a failure of an interactive process is stretching  both the law and what happened here the interactive dialogue that needed to occur here was when you need it answer i don't know questionable wouldn't comment when you do know let us know it's it'll be fine which is entirely consistent with prior situations where the palin requested time off for surgery for doctors of course there's absolutely no information no evidence in the record that at any time she was denied any treatment that she ever needed any time for for a doctor visit any time off for surgery for recovery and when she came back and said i'm going to need more treatment the answer is don't worry about it how do you distinguish soraya or should you distinguish from well i think because there was no current need there was no failure of accommodation i don't really need to but as your honor has at least suggested there was information provided in the serai that i want to have this process next month i need so i want to have this surgery next month the other distinguishing feature i believe is that she actually said i need it now in december and they said no and somebody else already has schedule even so you can have a thought i was from and there is no evidence in our case that there was any problem with whenever she wanted to schedule this appointment or in the future or whether it was next month next year whenever but the there is an intervening superseding event which is her position is eliminated what opposing counsels are not right see seems to be that the intermediary had an obligation to tell the decision makers that this ongoing medical condition was an issue there is no support for that either the policies that are cited by pallet or in the law what frankly their argument is is that the medical condition is information that should be shared with basically everyone  appellant here is arguing that there should be a conclusive presumption that once an h r person knows that an employee any employee presumably has a disability or a medical condition that information should be shared with language in the manual to that extent the only think there is a policy that certainly says if you need an accommodation you speak to exactly who she spoke to and they will deal with it the question is what does the manager a senior manager is not involved in determining cid this part what accommodation is needed in this situation until she may or may not if that depending on what the accommodation is but what's on the record about what  did in her interactions with the illusion mac i think this is a critical feature a critical point because what's in the record well what's in the record is that she didn't say anything what's in the record is she received notice from delusion by email that a decision had been made to terminate the planet the plaintiff's argument is at that point the the business manager the h r representative should have said wait this person has a medical condition that you weren't previously aware of there that is turning the purpose behind a the discrimination law on its head what you have here is uncontroverted evidence that the people who made the decision to eliminate the position were not aware there's no there's no contention that there was that ms murray's opinion or guidance was was sought or necessary for that the decision that was made there just is not nothing there and the result of the of this of plaintiffs argument here and it is understandable that the timeline is quite clear that at the time the decision was made to eliminate the position and that was altered in the plaine terminations the people who made that decision were not aware of either a medical condition or a need for accommodation there's no id no evidence of that whatsoever that is a disability well if that if there is no connection between disability knowledge of disability and the decision you don't make that claim if i should face and i think i would suggest that that's that's the fundamental challenge that the point of can q if there are other questions i think the i think that really takes care of frankly the entire thing we don't make it over there is no evidence additional evidence that would suggest shows on of us for that her i don't know he's suggesting that she had a duty to inform the decision makers that's what i heard him say pretty clearly in terms of the imputed knowledge theory yes i do kno initiated that we had that conversation she would her request notice that future treatment might be needed was received without any hostility and that the ball was in her court  and again the nature of the conversation that took place was fine when you do know let us know there's nothing else to convey to anyone else there's no there's no input that was needed by senior management in terms of how we were to deal with this thing i have a timeline here that we struggled to nail down exactly when the decision was made but there is there is that argument yes i don't think it is material to the resolution of the case because my please execute on this please get the information necessary to effectuate determination that was the last step in the analysis though of the position wasn't there earlier discussion about whether it was certain economically sound to have this economic viability of this position and the be income of the location there where there is evidence in the record to the extent that the discussions took place in the in the fourth quarter of two thousand and fifteen as to how they were going to deal with  a declining and unsustainable census of patients and what the best way to deal with it was and is there anything in the post germination conduct of the company that supports that there the decision was protection i would assert absolutely not there has been no there's been no change and the employment status of the positions of employment there has been no individual who has been hired to perform those duties there is nothing that nothing has changed since the i think to the chagrin of the employer nothing has changed in terms of wanted first to address the decision maker issue there's nothing in the case of that says that that rule is ironclad and in all cases if the decision makers don't have actual knowledge that the company of ways liability for discrimination the case law says you analyze the facts of the case and you look at how the companies are set up and how they operate and you take that into consideration what we're dealing with here is a really big company with where is your evidence of discrimination evidence of discrimination a didn't know she was the evidence of discrimination is that contrary to what counsel said there is no financial evidence that's in the record anywhere that they had a financial justification for a women ending the position so your answer is forgive me but is your answer then that is that it's circumstantial evidence of discriminatory and there is evidence of discrimination by virtue of the fact they placed all these ads including advertising our clients adds well i think that's maybe considered direct evidence but it could be circumstantial could be classified as a that we have all the advertising and they did not provide in the record any financial justification to show an undue hardship are you talking about for eliminating the position and they did not provide any evidence to show that they were suffering on do a hardship if they had to accommodate her and we also have miss marie not disclosing anything to them about the the plaintiff's medical condition and not interacting with her and so you can also go back to that i think the gist of the question was are you telling me that in the record the deposition evidence that you took depositions and you and you deposed the if you know what i'm referring to and marched you're telling me they didn't in fact elaborate on why they did what they did there is no evidence of did they elaborate on that they say you didn't ask them that question i went into that but it's not in the record no it is a difference between what they said and whether they gave you document showing a profit line problem they did not provide any evidence i'll tell you this it's not in the record but with that qualifier when i had to pose that they gave us financial statements that did not show any material differences between before she worked there when she worked there and after that would show there was a need or a justification so the district court just didn't understand i think that's the case but that that evidence is not in the record but anyways there were these ads plays mrs murray didn't tell the decision makers when she should have she didn't enter act with our client she kept it secret that's inconsistent with the policy manual and by the way i wanted to mention one thing and i know i'm almost done when you have a policy manual that has a procedure you waive all the notice requirements that would otherwise have been mandated by that regulation stands for the proposition if you have a manual and that your procedure you waive all of these other notice requirements that you might otherwise be able to assert as a defense of the california code requires that the that there be provided anticipated timing and duration of the leave is not right when the as soon as practicable but also there is also a provision that requires the employer in the interim to work with the employed and one duty is not contingent on the other to work with what what was there to work with here what was the employer supposed to work with the employer was supposed to work with her and find out how much time she thought she needed work with her and her doctor to set a date let her know what dates they thought would be ok for her to take the time off when she said she didn't she said she didn't know it would be sometime in the future she didn't know the exact date she notify them she definitely needed the time but the employer in the interim under the code and required to work with her and obtain that information and they did not and they would also work with her and scheduling it with her doctor that they were part of the date selection process under the regs that apply to this case and they didn't comply with that they just completely ignored it they regs required they respond within five days after she told them she needed an accommodation they didn't comply with their rent they didn't respond at all they just let her go and the other question i don't think so