this case is about the commission's balearics to give any deference to the only question here is whether or not the findings were supported by substantial evidence even if the commission's own  void of evidentiary backup let alone stronger evidence especially leaving monumental monumental gaps in not reviewing the order or substantial evidence the commission in this case should have looked at or for factors under she cone those doctors or disparate treatment delivery or enemies knowledge and timing inconsistent application of this is disparate treatment it was completely ignored by the commission the nd the nd piece of evidence disparate treatment was that thomas was treated differently than others terminated or the attendant policy no the other employees mention a trial and received determination letter of immediately or at the time of their own story read resignation that were suspended or terminated like someon they found that not adjacent addressing a safety issue in the context of the whole record was additional proof that the employer was not welcome is that a series of concerns but was more likely than not hostile to them commission tremendous decision in the boston case it came out the morning i filed my answering brief i did read it before i filed it i go think it's particularly pertinent to the present case because  they're posing counsel and are thomas misread just as or said she was he merely pointed out that the motivating factor is a lesser standard i think he called it a more forgivable standard for employees and then just as gorg proceeded to address by four of his case in our case thomas failed for the commission under the last favorable or more favorable for thomas less favorable to the employer motivating factor commission's decision was that thomas under any conceivable theory had failed to establish a prime aphasia case under the mine and my view of that and i  and and he can't meet even a lesser was that and i'm not i'm trying to be forthright with the court i do think it's about four standard i played it in my as an affirmative defense and my answer to question your honor i brought a mass to the commission in an interim decision that was on the hinge from the administrative hearing record and unsupported by substantial evidence the commission granted discretionary review the commission and i'm sure the court has gone through every single finding of fact the commission meeting is supported by the record adequate to the record and i would even argue is is generous to mr thomas you know what the record reflects and when that happens is conclusive and then secondly the commission's decision is consistent with its own  dent the commission side of the mass mets to be america's line case and then i say in a whole host of other cases on underneath in case there was any question landed will by al the trial flesher wa is rules discrimination cases and both thomas himself under oath testified that he didn't communicated no safety violations to the inspector and his attorney had oral argument before the commission said he didn't believe  any safety violations immunity to the inspector and even if you consider his long hours or his barge past training allegations which standard back or standard or but for to what occurred on january twenty five when he was suspended pending investigation and then to mr thomas is refusing to respond to repeated requests that he contact the question here are is i brought a message to the commission the commission it and i and i mean this they elegantly went through the record painstakingly as had this is what the record actually east sat and if you read to review substantial evidence to review whether it will be equal conclusions or contrary to the law to review precedent to review substantial policy under m shell and to review procedural errors and the and i there were sixty seven errors presented to the commission and they couldn't dance them elegantly into the fourteen or fifteen page decision you saw and the hatfield issue was the only issue where the commission had an internal squabble and i mean that lightly but you had three to two but it didn't matter because all five addressed all the allegations of protected activity regardless and said there's just no conceivable pretty here we have a mining act by a lesion and so i understand your question opposing counsel and time as now before you let's just cut to the chase you there are you men on a couple statements in the interim decision that say being damn and dave mcauley were overly rehearsed in their presentation whether a corporate i don't know how anybody would meet that standard going forward if that were the standard i rehearsed them but i didn't overly rehearse them or i prepared them but i didn't overly prepare them the l j doesn't identify in the interim decision any specific testimony that was discredited and that's because there wasn't any contradiction meaningfully in the testimony the l j sides the use of quaint terms which was j said well they use the term suspended pending investigation if you look at the commission decision they were very they pointed they cited two specific places in the record where thomas and make milligan also use the phrase suspended pending investigation as did the a l j herself in the interim decision and then there are they said that i had a lead witnesses and i'll stand by the record i i asked some good questions as sign but nd of all their credibility doesn't meet thomas affirmative obligation to prove a violation of the mine and and the commission didn't need to address this offhanded comment about whether poly were rehearsed or not which is the entire basis of the appeal before you because the contradicted evidence of record supports that even mine and violation did not motivate the suspension and terminations from of women and that's what the commission elegantly after reviewing the entire record sa see number one but number two he never tells gallup or when i'm not coming in because i thought i was terminated or i'm not coming in because every see if they don't even know he's received that because  and deborah said please disregard has been sent by mistake all the time was had to do and he knew this is to respond to his employer they can't make him come to work and at some point in ministry to believe this was brief and dave mcauley said i haven't made up my decision yet i need to know whether he was whether this was a repeat of all circumstance and i needed to know the answer to the latter question where mr thomas differed from clearly that's not a communication to him all he had to do was reach out with but i mean nobody in the united states of america can make people come to work and at some point administratively when they cease  another example was that employers the book was an example of the employer's knowledge of thomas protected activity of engaging in attorney mr thomas and his daughter specifically told mr mccauley to contact his attorney the way doesn't make any sense and actually cuts against the justification which is he just walked away if you walked away why would why would they be saying i got rid of him for you and that's not even the reason why he was terminated and so was the  not the safety incident and it is also cut against what cuts against that is the fact that his boss of or during and after was engaging in the same behavior unsafe behavior and why would he be terminated for a safety violation of his boss the one who's terminating him is recommending his terminations and one of the we get impossible just occasions that he walked away from the investigation  and that he didn't walk away and finally the fact that he had violated attendance falls is also weak and impossible