With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 . Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(m). 2 . See id. 3 . Humphrey v. Mem'l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2001). 4 . See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir.2002) (reviewing the district court's findings of fact for clear error). 5 . The district court properly excluded as hearsay USF’s evidence of the April 2003 tests purportedly showing that Hughes could not access USF’s software programs from home. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), 802. 6 . See Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. 7 . Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(m). 8 . Id. at § 12940(n). 9 . Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1089. 10 . See Buckingham v. United States, 998 F.2d 735, 740 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d

A: holding that if all of an employees coworkers knew that he had a heart condition such knowledge would not amount to notice to the employer that the employee was so limited by a disability as to require special accommodations
B: holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation
C: holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit
D: holding that an employer may not merely speculate that the employees suggested accommodation is not feasible but must gather sufficient information  from qualified experts  to determine the accommodations effectiveness
D.