HOLDINGS:

HOLDINGS: [1]-A terminated employee's action against his employer under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, arising from his serious and unpredictable pain from gout, was properly resolved by summary judgment for the employer because the employer provided a reasonable accommodation (RA), and it did not have to provide an alternate RA where it required elimination of an essential function of the job; [2]-Moreover, as the employer provided a RA for the employee's pain from gout, it was not required to provide a reassignment accommodation in addition to that; [3]-The employee's claim that the employer retaliated against him lacked merit, as the employee did not show that he had engaged any protected activity.

Write 1 or 2 of the central question or questions on which the case turns in the last appellate decision. These are questions of law that the appellate court is being asked to decide.