With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". duties. Id. at 1465 (emphasis added). In support of his argument that he was replaced, Godfredson cites Tinker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 F.3d 519 (6th Cir.1997). Tinker was terminated from his employment at Sears as part of a reduction in force. Shortly thereafter, an existing Sears employee assumed Tinker’s former duties. In changing the existing employee’s status from part-time to full-time, Sears had to “fundamentally change the nature of his employment ... in order to have him assume Tinker’s duties in addition to his own.” Id. at 522. This court held that the circumstances in Tinker were analogous to hiring a new employee to assume the duties of a discharged employee, and thus constituted replacement. See id.; see also Wilkins v. Eaton Corp., 790 F.2d 515, 521 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The district court in the present case noted

A: holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work
B: holding that reassignment is not required where the disabled plaintiff sought to escape the employers legitimate nondiscriminatory policy requiring all employees seeking transfers from parttime to fulltime positions to take a written exam
C: holding that the plaintiff was replaced when another employee was promoted from parttime to fulltime and his new position required him to perform duties for which he had not previously been responsible
D: holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error
C.