but i want to spend most of my time on the discrimination my ability question because that was the big issue of course i was in the constitutional when the bigger bigger issue and i think that constitutionally the resolution  both sides and i thought that was your that was your point that some people going to exemptions just not your point that there are those who take issue who are not vaccinated or not not if we have an international body the n f p a they say or the fire department should do is just put a piece of paper in someone's personal file when they decline a good there's there was not a single witness that says in the other professions and so for a more typical profession i think that argument would be stronger as long as the income from the direct employment doesn't change their duties a lot of or that they're not but i'm injury could find this requirement on reason the fire chief who proposed it said it would be difficult to impossible to do fire fighting or in the respirator our medical expert agreed to respirator would make fire fighting much more difficult  protected activity that mr bork got engaged in by writing a fire people letter in which he said he'd agreed to extra infection control measures in the because there was no medical support for adding a constant respirator i believe the fire chief also said that he looks to the c d c recommendations and  the city's main argument in support of the dismissal of the retaliation claim tries to fit the case within the doctrine that opposition to discrimination is unprotected if it interferes so much with the employees job performance that  especially in a small right in a larger city like austin they probably don't have all their firefighters providing medical attention but in a city like a leader that was the required part of the job description so this was a policy  built because we thought people in the city needed to have mandatory vaccinations this was a policy that was put in place to deal with anyone who provides medical attention  are there i mean you know you're i'm right there at that time how many who were frankly this was the only exemption requests that we received from the vaccination policy and i think you had asked about why did this come  control playing a couple of years earlier which is how the influenza vaccine came out and then about a year or two later we introduced an overall health safety program you can see if you wish for the wire exam for food but not for women it just can't but i don't i don't disagree that in the record our fired feet misspoke and says that it can and he was referring to the backseat however what is also in the record here from dr shannon her testimony and you can see it in the c cannot be tested for it just isn't one of those induction talks about that at length in her deposition and it is in the rack it just is not there are other vaccines that you can do that for and the fire department again right is it normal hospital what happens is before you start the job you have to be vaccinated you know it's harder for us because we have a group of employees who have now all get on board but it's all a matter of just onboarding this is not about ongoing problems right now don't have ongoing employees who are being tested for advocacy and then you're having to do something this was just getting the program started which is the same reason that mr herapath was not asked where is greater during the two months he continued to work for us and that we knew he had done the t x t right everything would be done big put into place we were sending our firefighters out there we were doing that work once it's done you're done right you don't cuts in the fact that this is an impossible rate it's it's because we weren't doing this before and now we are but that's what happens when you change safety protocol written you change of safety very long you're going to have to deal with it again and if what his or her back  said was well i can't do this because in my religion but in three months i'd hand them the city would have to have looked at whether it could wait three months to let him do whatever needed to be done so because you're in an ongoing you're in a good situation  getting everyone up to speed right the minute we write the policy we could not get one hundred percent compliance until the idea that the city has got a policy or is setting a bad appearance by not being able to  instantaneous complete comply with what it's doing doesn't really make sense right it needs to have an opportunity and it can't be used against that because it's firefighters a chance to get everything done right we couldn't do it immediately but when we're done testified to in court was not that we didn't need to do anything more than we were doing right his his actual conclusions are that we actually could be should be doing more right than he should be what would be recommended was are that it can't be tested for africa see that it particularly is should be required for all hope care workers and they're all basically kind of how dangerous it is it has secondary is usually what you were providing to accommodate for someone's religious rights and what you were accommodating for people who don't have a religious concern and there is no evidence that we offered any type of accommodation to anyone who didn't  you it cuts against the idea that for discrimination it is the fact that we look at the will and make a decision we may or may not be right we may or may not be protecting the public as much as we should from influenza but we did our own balancing and accommodated that request and we did the same thing when we got to t x and the supreme court's been very clear about what the accommodation needs to be and i don't think that difference between what we did for influenza and could be said to be reason not where they might be connected knowledge it's not quite the same dichotomy is the greed and when republicans analogous to the point is if you've got a series of policies and you're allowing exemptions for one but not the other shouldn't there need to be an explanation as to have righted mr gore matter rather again be a firefighter and provide people medical emergency medical attention we don't look to that and we don't have to prove that everything we did a better policy is right orders the best policy in what happened here and then i think and then have to start talking about undue hardship and looking out whether we need to get right and the difference between this kiper exposure and maybe other types of maybe we're not doing enough for anyone to leak and do more maybe could be done differently but there's no evidence that any of the decision making had anything to do with religion it had to do with trying to get it right to balance  doesn't require intent in this context it doesn't but without the intent what you have is a facially neutral policy our policy is that vaccines are mandatory and so that's what you have and i think similarly with our retaliation claim right we we told mr her about you need to decide which accommodation you want and he never picked and so the idea that that this was a decision made based on discrimination or retaliation is not supported by the evidence the accommodation discussion from the courts has been that almost anything suffices right and i think that's a little strong but  if you don't want to work with the restrictions at the fire department that we had for you we gave you the very best job we could have and we didn't even just make it available which is what the vast majority of these cases now silliness left off and talking about for often the idea that almost any accommodation can meet a reasonable accommodation stand i do think that the cases are sort of trending away but the word reasonable and the phrase reasonable combination has to me some so you know if an employee of requests a religious accommodation and it would be trivial for the employer to grant that accommodation but instead the employer says you know you can transfer to a janitor position working overnights for half the pay or you're going to be fired and the answer is that's a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law that a jury doesn't even get to weigh in on then you know that's a big step back for what the protections are for religious discrimination in the type of stuff and there's no case that i'm aware of holding that a significantly worse job with the worst schedule that leads to a significant loss of income can be a reasonable accommodation as a matter of summary judgment and this court shouldn't be the st court to so all want to spend the rest of the time picking up on this question about what's the difference between accommodating flew in accommodating pertussis and respond to some of the things mr leno said and then and with a suggestion for what a jury could find that supported by the record i heard miscellaneous say the city checked around them what other places were doing it heard we are not accommodating exemptions from teed up i challenge the court to find any evidence of that anywhere in the record that's just not in the person who said this can't be accommodated that was dr shannon the family doctor from the health district but what the fire chief thought she said was use the twenty four hour and ninety five respirators i heard miscellaneous say how you protect against transmission of flu and pertussis is different and that's a fun way to flee contradicted by the record these are infections that are spread by droplets coughs and sneezes and so the same things that work for mr horvath with the flu which is selective wearing of the surgical mask monitoring body temperature are not coming in with a fever and then being subject to additional screenings when having cold and flu type symptoms coughing and sneezing also what of it with pertussis what are the record specifically what pitch side contradicts what counsel said what contradicts the spread of how i'm just following you said you said the record contradicts i agree with mrs miscellaneous his interpretation is that there were exemptions from wearing a respirator for people that the fire chief believe had been proven to lack i i believe she's correct that that test does not actually exist in the fire chief was wrong about that he had tests showing a lack of  i think a set of facts that a jury could find about why flu was treated differently than pertussis is that the fire chiefs religious animists was billed and here the building blocks of that number one when mr corvet st requested exemption from the flu vaccine the fire chief said i question the science behind your request and that was part of the reason was some of the cells and some of the flu shots originated in aborted foetuses and mr horvath cited that as part of the reason the fire says i question that science even though it's indisputable mr horvath testified in his deposition for the nd flu vaccine the fire chief said you can be exempt from this but if you keep pushing this exemption stuff and you're going to have an issue number three where those in the record are posters that's in the fire chief deposition i don't have a page in lines that's in your brief i don't believe it is i'm happy to submit a letter brief tomorrow to the court the initial reaction when mr  about exemption from t that right that moment was you have the right not to take vaccines but you don't have the right to have a job here in the th and final thing is all the lies that the fire chief told about how this process played out on the