accommodation requires a great deal of communication between the employee and employer[;] ... both parties bear responsibility for determining what accommodation is necessary.” Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 100 F.3d 1281, 1285 (7th Cir.1996) (also noting that “[i]n a ease involving an employee with mental illness, the communication -process becomes more difficult,” and “[i]t is crucial that the employer [is] aware of the difficulties, and help the other party determine what specific accommodations are necessary”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). • If the termination was the result of a communication mistake Criado should háVe been reinstated once her physician explained her condition and prognosis and asked for additional leave. See Bultemeyer, 100 F.3d at 1286 (<HOLDING>). Asserting that the termination was based on
holding that an employers decision to terminate the plaintiff based on information supplied by a supervisor satisfies the causation requirement holding that although physicians letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employers decision to terminate employer should have reconsidered the decision to terminate his employment holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct holding that after the employer determined the employee was not disabled the employer had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to terminate the employee for unexcused absences under section 510