may we are here asking that this honorable court reverse the summary judgment that was entered in favor of the defendants in this matter and remand the matter for trial i think that alternately the entire appellant's case comes down to a series of actions essential my client had filed an underlying discrimination matter against the city of these problems that matter was resolved in two different agreements one was entered on november th of two thousand and fifteen the other was entered on december th of two thousand and fifteen the november th two thousand and fifteen agreement had provisions historically there's a new superintendent that becomes involved with the district in about january of two thousand and sixteen on january th two thousand and sixteen less than one month after reason for the superintendent to have gone to my client to have asked about that agreement there's plain language to that agreement it says that the school department will on its own create unfunded affirmative action position  with duties and responsibilities similar to that for the city whose province so you say you say because the superintendent checked with your client your client had any objections that's unlawful retaliation in and of itself i wouldn't say that your hon does is to instead of actually creating a position within the district for this affirmative action officer she then has the assistant superintendent take that position as a additional duty so it's not the creation of another position the testimony of the assistant superintendent reveals she was paid any additional money for that and she was told that that was going to be one dollar of her duties when she came into the district was there's plain language of what the agreement was which was the creation of this additional position the reason summary judgment was granted below with respect to that contract had to do with the ability of my client to enforce that contract not because district middle school where she is dealing with more special education students than any other principal there which was an issue in the st wasit we have brought the next thing that happens is that they decide without telling her that they are applying for a grant to create a pre k program they do this without telling her they're using her credentials but more importantly they then turn around and voluntarily reassign her into that position resigning her into that position is putting her in a position where suddenly she doesn't have as much control over the curriculum she is supervising i think sixty of us to employees and has hundreds of less students we would argue that that is an adverse well what's the temporal gap between that action when  demotion and the acts she took that's protected activity that that devotion would be retaliation for the protected activity what at the latest round december th two thousand and fifteen that activity of submitting her credentials was in january telling her she could be reassigned was at the end of april and the actual reassignment was in may of two thousand and sixteen so tell me with the calendar that the gap between the latest the protective activity good run and the latest the adverse action could be said to have been consummated would be how long six months before  but its argument that because these other things happen in the in between including failing to follow the spirit and intent of the agreement you signed in november of two thousand and fifteen  which i think you accept means the burden shifts back to you to show that it's not that temporal gap isn't so tight that you might think the temple got alone suffices so what are the features that you're relying on to demonstrate that they're legitimate and reclaim your claim that they have a legitimate reason for thinking that there isn't something that a jury would have to accept ok so again i don't want to repeat myself we go back to the failure to comply with the intent and spirit of the agreement there was no additional position created it was given as a additional duty to a superintendent i think and  or something about the way the process is with done that it's shows that it is fishy is that the point about the credentials being used without asking her that's in part the point with the credentials being asked the nd is that as stated in the evidence there was other people that could have been and in fact were put into that position one of the things that was stated to the appellant was that she was put there because she was the person with the credentials for that we know when my client left the district that there was another person who was employed by the district who was directly moved into that position did she not have the credentials  they both have the credentials to do it yes but that doesn't help you i was but one of the things that we rely on to trends they will a jury could find that the claimed legitimate nondiscriminatory reason isn't so explanation for why they took this action you're characterizing as the demotions it doesn't hold up successfully that it's a demotion the argument of the superintendent was that they were moving her into this position to give her more experience and help develop her it in fact does the exact opposite moving her into this position sort of place where she is again supervising far less people dealing with far less students she's put into place where she has less control over the curriculum all of which are in the record so this is arguably for a jury something that is punitive in nature to my client mislead but that's simply saying you think it's an adverse doesn't get at the question of how how you get over your burden of having evidence that could raise a finding that it was retaliatory it's not one piece of evidence that would get this claim to that point it's a combination of the things that happened your honor and that is our argument which is that when this superintendent comes in and starts asking questions about a settlement agreement that has the interest not dry on then fails to comply with the terms of that agreement then it turns around and doublets my client but that's a series of events that's happened i mean there are the things that came in there that are relatively minor but it is architecture that's all of those things that lead to and can lead a jury to believe that this is retaliatory action against my client for filing that initial  lawsuit that was resolved in two thousand and fifteen and one last point of clarification in your reaching unless i misread it you seem to characterize it as a hostile work place cla today you seem to be simply saying it's a retell using claim based on an adverse employment action that you're saying you can prove a jury could find was retaliatory that doesn't seem to have anything to do with  work environment which seems fine it's just i don't know what to do with the very good it is of frame to us as if you're trying to make out a hostile work environment claim which seems pretty far from the straight out retaliation based on an adverse employment action relevant question is can you show that adverse employment action is retaliatory you don't have to worry about whether it adds up to a hostile work environment that is don't quite know one's well that that's true if you apply the decision that i referenced earlier which is that billings decision that comes from you folks in two thousand and eight if you find that it's not the same thing then i believe that i have to prove that it's a hostile environment  that creates this adverse employment environment for her this adverse employment action didn't spoil it both arguments below or only to the work environment argument below i actually don't know your o clear up this confusion that i'm having about the case as presented in the briefing to us is framed as a hostile work environment case and then you're now talking about whether there was an adverse employment action and just  not contesting the data aspect of it is in the case i'm sorry could i don't understand you you're not you're not disputing that question of whether there's retaliation based on a single adverse employment action namely the that's doesn't doesn't change sure that's her own personal bruised ego that it was a smaller group that's not taken into consideration with the court took into consideration which this court should as well the fact of the matter is that was a pilot program that they were looking to get someone in there with experience as a having principal position to run the program the state had just begun a statewide study of these provident the most classrooms than any other municipality and the very favorable and wanted to put their best foot forward so they thought they would do that by putting in someone with experience and who had all the proper certifications but it just seems like that's an argument about why they thought it was legitimate to do it and that the jury still could have concluded objectively that it was a demotion unless you're saying no jury could conclude it was a demotion even though it was a smaller pool to be working on i'm saying they couldn't your honor and  stemmons trading non discriminatory basis and we're right back to their guns the presumption of any discrimination burden back on point to to show that it's a pretext to show that it's a pretext and to show that the real reason was discrimination and in this case as the court to learn apartment through the evidence meticulously not only on the bench in the position but also on the claims regarding the contract and the  superintendent they agreed to having new people took her to her school during that exchange it was too late to pull the weatherman agreement plank of her superintendent but she wanted to be up front about what had happened and she said that the behind it is simply not supported by any of the evidence that was presented once again we get back to the underlying standard in the case that is in summary judgment which is you can quote does not accept conclude your allegations you that concludes arguments for today the session of the honorable apple united states court of appeals has now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court couns may disconnect from the hearing