work experiences. See Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir.2001); 29 C.F.R. § 16S0.2(n)(3). NSP considers, and its associate consultant job description designates, handling safety-sensitive calls as an essential job function. Emerson argues that the relative rarity of such calls (5% of the job, by her estimate) shows that they are only a marginal duty. Although we accept Emerson’s estimate of the safety-sensitive call volume, it fails to rebut the essential function status. Consultants clearly receive safety-sensitive calls which are crucial as they have potentially dangerous consequences if handled poorly. Emerson suggests that the calls could have been routed to another consultant, but this does not change their essential function status. See Basith, 241 F.3d at 929 (<HOLDING>). Second, Emerson contends that she could
holding that an employers obligation to an employee to act in good faith extends only to the performance of those contractual duties it has chosen to assume holding that an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate holding that a bailment is a delivery of personal property to another to hold in trust for a particular purpose holding that employers ability to assign delivery duties to another employee does not make them nonessential holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made