## Q2 key (Accommodation Termination)
1. Dana is qualified; two years of "exceeds" performance while fully remote defeats the claim that four-day onsite presence is essential, reinforced by the silent job description, the two remote comparators, and the three-meetings-per-quarter record. Missed: the defense is built on an essential-function theory that will not hold.
2. The parking-space offer is not a reasonable accommodation responsive to the request; the six-week silence matters only through supplied rule 4, and a reasonable accommodation plainly existed, so the process failure is actionable in effect. Missed: false comfort from the interactive-process rule.
3. Counting protected-leave days as "no call, no show" is interference and, given the personal-email instruction, likely pretext evidence; the stated termination ground collapses. Missed: client contests a charge whose central fact is indefensible.
4. Paul's "we finally have our out" text plus the position-statement shift from "abandonment" to "collaboration deficiencies" is a shifting-explanations pretext record. Missed: exposure assessment ignores the worst documents.
5. Undue hardship cannot be shown on this record; morale and precedent are excluded by supplied rule 5. Missed: dead-end defense consumes the strategy.
6. Damages: cap applies only to compensatory and punitive ($300,000); back pay (about $53,000 and running), front pay, and fees sit outside it. Total realistic exposure well above the cap figure. Missed: settlement authority set to the wrong ceiling.
7. Posture: settle, or reinstate with the accommodation plus make-whole pay; do not litigate the merits. A defensible settlement range brackets the $450,000 demand rather than dismissing it. Missed: client fights a losing record into a fee-shifted judgment.
8. Remediation: written accommodation-request tracking with deadlines, telework analysis on the merits, and leave-absence coding controls, framed prospectively. Missed: repeat exposure.