Regrding Samson v$.$ Federal Express, $746$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $1196(11$th Cir. $2014)1.$ What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

$2.$ How do courts determine whether particular tasks are $$essential functions$$ of jobs? What was the evidence that test$-$driving was an essential function of the Vehicle Technician job? Why does the court nonetheless conclude that a reasonable jury could find that test$-0$driving was not an essential function of this job?

$3.$ Why do the Federal Motor Carrier Regulations requiring medical certification of drivers not resolve the case in favor of Federal Express?

$4.$ What argument does the dissenting judge make? Is it persuasive? Why or why not?