With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but the indeterminate time Emerson requested simply introduced too much uncertainty into NSP’s handling of emergency calls. NSP appropriately declined Emerson’s suggestion to route safety-sensitive calls away from her. An employer is not obligated to change the essential functions of a job to accommodate an employee. See Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Co., 102 F.3d 908, 913 (7th Cir.1996) (“In short, reason able accommodation does not encompass reallocation of essential job functions.”). Emerson further suggested that in case of a panic attack, a supervisor could handle her safety-sensitive calls. NSP rejected this option because it did not always staff a supervisor and would have had to create new supervisor shifts to accommodate Emerson, which the ADA does not require. See id. at 912 (<HOLDING>). Emerson does not bring any evidence tending

A: holding that ada may obligate employer to reassign disabled employee who can no longer even with reasonable accommodation perform the essential functions of her job
B: holding it is not reasonable to require an employer to hire a helper to do overhead work for a miner who cannot perform this essential job function alone
C: holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination
D: holding that the ada does not require an employer to hire an assistant to help a disabled employee fulfill his work responsibilities
B.