her chronic problems. Both Pickens and her doctor indicated that she could work a regular full-time schedule, and Pickens herself did not ask for any accommodation. In these circumstances, there is no triable issue that it was reasonable to stop the liberal leave accommodation. When Pickens later raised the possibility of working from home on an as-needed basis (April 1999), her only substantiation for the request was a letter from her physician which simply listed her diagnosed conditions and them date of onset. There is no dispute that she understood that she needed to provide medical documentation, or that she was aware of what information was required. She was told this was insufficient, and makes no argument that it was. See Allen v. Pac. Bell, 348 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Halpern’s subsequent report (May 1999)
holding that in light of the defendants failure to engage in the interactive process liability would be appropriate if  reasonable accommodation would otherwise have been possible holding that if the employer requests reasonable medical evidence to support an employees claim of changed condition the employer is under no obligation to engage in further interactive processes if the employee fails to submit such evidence holding that the interactive process requires both sides to communicate directly and exchange essential information such that the employer may be liable only if the employer is responsible for the breakdown of the interactive process recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury