she was in a program a physician's assistance program where the program director and did not believe that a person with her disability would be qualified to be his issues assistant she proceeded through this program for almost to completion just a few months away from home graduation which successful in this program up until this point even though she dealt with these being told by her program director that she didn't respect the staff by asking for compensation is asking her who do you think you are because she asked for competitions for her disability being required to travel three hundred miles to take her exams when other students without disabilities were not required to to do so so we reached this point where she is taking this exam and el paso as a few months short of her her graduation she has has been ill she's taking medications that have essentially neutralized her disability medications she's suffering from her affects of disability that she has at this type of behavior is not uncommon where you panic you you don't remember certain bangs and what the district court failed to realize is that her taking this cellular phone into an exam was not was not unrelated to her disability it was a direct result of her  the that at the dismissal is solely based on her disability it was here but the law does not require that because we're talking about accommodations here but putting that aside the district court was incorrect in that miss flora's is alleging that her accidentally taking this cell phone and into an exam room was a result of her disability her disability results and this type can result in this type of behavior in this type of situation where she she she panicked and forgot and should he forgot that she had a phone in our pocket and didn't know how to resolve that issue dealing with were able to she didn't do we deal with do we worry about the fact that she was unable to participate in the hearings properly that she didn't defend herself properly at the hearing she had over a month to prepare if that wasn't enough time to prepare what would have been enough but and it's really not about the amount of time she had to hear she was given misleading information about what she expected this hearing she wasn't aware that she was going to the asked these types of questions she wasn't aware you think you would do it and hearing that i know what i would do a hearing but you know based on your she had never been through a process like this before but you'd be asked questions about why did you cheat and why did you do this and how did this come about need to be given a chance to give an explanation and had had she been allowed to submit her statement and advance which she had asked to do hearing but the law doesn't require her to do so once the university is aware that she requires accommodations they may have to provide her with reasonable accommodations he led with the your your statement that you believe or she believed that her supervisor didn't think she was qualified to be a physician's assistant solely based on her disability us was that it that issues not before us whether she meets the qualifications for a physician's assistant is physician's assistant based on her disability but was that not it is your position that that's not she can't doubt that or wonder if she's if you can't communicate on the spot that might make it difficult to be i'm not saying that she couldn't be qualified and we don't have to decide it but for someone to make that statement is not discriminatory is it if they're making  decision to dismiss news or as from this program based on her disability i do believe that that is discriminatory and that is exactly what the program director asked asked the panel to do was to take that into account has whether or not their disability would prevent them from becoming a physician's assistant that's not the role of a university or and this certainly wasn't the role of this panel who was asked whether or not she cheated during the exam a trial meaning in her mind she expected that they would call witnesses and be able to ask the questions of those witnesses if she was not prepared that you know she was going essentially be interrogated she was not aware that she could have an advisor if they were with her certain accommodation should have been made to have the rules posted for these discipline hearings just like  for title nine hearings and all these other kind of hearings they have rules that you can have an advisor or whatever you can make an inquiry but that doesn't that's very common these universities have that is common that is common and i'd assume that they did he however if she was relying on the statements that there was major her by the conduct officer that she met with before the hearing and that's best but she has nothing discriminatory about having a hearing at the university like this is there not for saying no no it's all well if she violated the rule and it's undisputed that she violated the rule then why can't she just be what why why was the decision of the school wrong because what the school is saying is that she cheated what this flores is saying is different than that she did she does not admit that she cheated in fact she's changed absolutely says that she did not cheat she have an opportunist show the proctor at the time of the exam and she offered to show her her phone to show her that she did not cheat that she had nothing on there to use the chea ms flores is guilty of doing is as a result of her a d h she panicked forgot to remove the phone from her pocket and went into an exam with that phone when she realized that the phone was in a pocket she attempted to turn it off and as a result of that she was brought up on charges of cheating we know that she had a target on her back from from day one we know that we have a program director in disability from her taking the cell phone into an exam room there there are there in connection with each other she wouldn't if she had not had this disability she would not have akins united for john and you're suggesting that she needed the saying as a result of her disability she forgot that she had the phone in her pocket is that and we would have a doctors who would back up that statement but what the district court said is that we didn't state claim because that usually has to show that they were subjected to discrimination solely based on their disability the government can't do this because she admitted that she violated proper program policy when she brought her phone into the test when she removed  her pocket and she looked at it long enough to be photographed doing so by the exam proctor she's arguing that her eighty caused her to bring her phone to the front of the test but to make that suggestion that a d t caused people to bring their phone into this house as the ms for us although in her first amended complaint makes no mention of the failure to accommodate and that those words don't appear together anywhere in the complaint and the district court found that she didn't clearly articulate such a claim she has pivoted and is trying to salvage her rehab that claim and sidestepped that strict causation stannard by arguing that the university failed to provide her with accommodations and she argues that into context of the need first in the testing sphere and then in the disciplinary process that followed with regard to testing miss forces main complaint now is that she had to take her chest in el paso instead of taking them in mid and she gives us the reason in her complaint when she says that that's where special proctors were located which other staff members to specialized in academic and disability support she of course omits from her complaint the real reason but she hints at it when she knowledge is that she took all of her tests in el paso all of her previous test not just this one so she's arguing that the testing location made the other accommodations ineffective but she also acknowledges again she took all of her chasin out asso and up until this point up until the getting caught with a phone and she claims that she had an unblemished academic looking at her phone so i will rely on that takes moving to the disciplinary sphere this for us claims that accommodations were never provided when they should have then even though they were never requested in the first place and she's trying to argue that the university has some under some i'm going obligation on its own to sue the stanton modify its disciplinary procedures for her because we knew that she had a t v but there was no request for any further modifications beyond the testing atmosphere there's no law to support that proposition last accommodation to submit a written statement because she couldn't speak in public or something like that accommodation was not request and the it's not in the complaint she was in the house so doing her clinical rotations anyway and i believe there is a satellite campus there but of course that's not in the complaint and her complaint says that she was there because that's where the special properties were located university have to have knowledge of the individual's desire for further accommodations there was no knowledge of her desire for any accommodations in this case beyond the testing atmosphere the university and this comes from the lower court's decision in duncan the science center houston another case cited by the opposition the universe is now required to get asked as to what further accommodations might be needed that responsibility to interact once a student comes forward with their need for examinations and their condition it's a share interactive process and especially with a condition like eighty that's not open obviously apparent the burden more falls on the individual in consultation with his or her physician to determine what type of accommodations are necessary in any given environment the point is that this force in this case and it's omitted from her profession and  student handbook so she will have a an understanding of how that process goes she got her thirty minute hearing she goes to constitutional order panel order the student conduct  this step which would be step through step through the georgia test because it found no title to violation and then it moved a step to the georgia test and also finding that there was no underlying constitutional violation of the one that's from her complaint that assess the i want to claim that the district court did it on both grounds for title two to bret's and i thought that you could just do it on felly or to state a claim just to be parallel to rehab correct correct you really don't have to decide if the district court about the sovereign immunity issue that's correct and i think that's one of the and probably why this case was selected for oral argument because i think the court placed its emphasis on sovereign immunity but i think what helps the just to save a different question opinion is that they also dismissed based on twelve basics and i think the conflict there if it's in the court's opinion is that they followed guidance from this court and us the ramming to consider a twelve b one challenge first and that would be the sovereign immunity before moving on to any other twelve challenges that's the issue that we've not decided in other cases and we're not like some other circuits who have not decided that yet right kind of direct lower course when they're considering title two claims to consider step one of the georgia test first did the did the plaintiff state of viable claim under title two before mine is the same as a regular twelve b six exactly that they wanted titled to to to take the steps that they took had there been appropriate combinations made along the way i can