at 136 (quoting Reed, 244 F.3d at 259) (internal quotation mark omitted). Jones cannot satisfy the first prong of this test because he presented no basis to his employer for his claim that a six-month delay beyond December 31, 2008 (until he was eligible to take the exam again) was reasonable. He also did not show any reason for the employer to conclude he would pass the exam if given yet another opportunity to take it. “One element in the reasonableness equation is the likelihood of success.” Evans v. Fed. Express Corp., 133 F.3d 137, 140 (1st Cir.1998); see also Halpem, 669 F.3d at 465 (“[T]he indefinite duration and uncertain likelihood of success of [plaintifO’s proposed accommodation renders it unreasonable.”); Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 202 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in Evans, this court held that an
holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada holding that coming to work regularly is an essential function holding proposed accommodation unreasonable where plaintiff failed to show how proposal would allow him to overcome a key obstacle to performing an essential function holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause