call WWL’s actions a “delay” given that the Company sought to engage Marks in a discussion about the scope of his need for an accommodation during this interval. Selenke v. Med. Imaging of Colo., 248 F.3d 1249, 1262-64 (10th Cir. 2001) (approximately six-month delay in accommodating plaintiffs sinus problems did not amount to failure to reasonably accommodate where defendant took steps to determine extent of limitations in interim). Had it failed to do so, WWL may even have been subjected to liability for this lack of action. See, e.g., Brown v. Potter, 457 Fed.Appx. 668, 670 (9th Cir. 2011). It would be quite a Catch-22, then, if the brief period f delay would have rendered Marks unable to perform his job. See Hill v. Clayton Cty. Sch. Dist., 619 Fed.Appx. 916, 922 (11th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). As a reminder, Marks spent his first 14
holding that a six month delay was unreasonable holding that a five month delay was unreasonable holding twomonth delay could be unreasonable where employee could not work and was not paid in interim holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable holding that prescription delay was not violation because plaintiff could not establish detrimental effect of delay in treatment