Ahmet Yigit Demirelli worked as a call representative for Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. Demirelli suffered from a rare condition commonly known as brittle bone disease and had to be in a wheelchair. Convergys terminated Demirelli's employment after he had worked there for about a year because of excessive tardiness. Demirelli claimed that his "tardies" stemmed from his inability to park in one of the two handicapped van-accessible spots, because whenever he arrived at work in the morning or after his lunch break, they were occupied. Even when he tried to arrive at work early, the spots were occupied. Additionally, when returning from lunch, Demirelli had difficulty finding an empty call cubicle in which to work, because he had to wheel through all the rows to see empty cubicles, rather than being able to look over the top of a whole row as the other employees did. Demirelli attempted to suggest accommodations that could be made to fix his tardies situation. He suggested reserving a cubicle for him (which his first supervisor had done), or allowing him a few extra minutes to return from lunch. When he was terminated, Demirelli made a claim with the EEOC that Convergys had violated the ADA by not providing him with reasonable accommodations for his disability. The EEOC filed suit against Convergys. The district court found for the EEOC and Demirelli. Convergys appealed, arguing that the accommodations that Demirelli had suggested were unreasonable and that Convergys was not in violation of the ADA. How do you think the court of appeals ruled and why? EEOC v. Convergys Customer Management Group, 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007).