may please the court i think there are numerous errors wolf of law and in not interpreting the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and i think that they were fall for around the difficulty the court had in understanding what is religious discrimination under these unique facts it was apparent as i've reviewed the record that judge snyder really just did not see how much direct evidence that there was of discriminatory bias against chaplain blair who is  accomplished recognized christian chaplain and the direct evidence i think goes both to the actual decision to remove her from the new hospice unit less than two months after she had started there and also to various kinds of what you might call stray remarks you know that reflect  generalized type of bias by the folks at the hospice unit who were not her supervisors now her supervisor chaplain michael vasquez he admitted that he didn't know any specific problems that she had that led the dr rosenfeld to recommend that she not she was not going to succeed in her probationary term he he didn't know he admitted that he had never counseled her that the v a violated all of its rules and policies for dealing with probationary employees in the way that they treated chaplain blair and i think that judge snyder really did not see that the very rationale that she was somehow inadequate as a chaplain and unable to minister to the non christian patients that this was itself in the absence of any evidence in the record to support that view from dr rosenfeld it was evidence of direct evidence of bias dr rosenfeld admitted that he himself was relying on what others especially the nurse manager told him and chaplain blair's testimony was they had a very limited interaction maybe four times when they actually had any sort of meaningful interaction and so there were assumptions made that somehow chaplain blair was intolerant she was falsely accused of calling the t i know indian hospice patient a devil worshipper which in my view reflects since she clearly did not have vigorously denies that that reflects more on the person making the accusation and how they perceive chaplain blair than it does on on chaplain blair who was responsible for four of certifying others to become credentialed chaplains she certainly understood what chaplaincy ministry was and another key mistake i think that the court made below was to assume that somehow it was chaplain blair's view of an interfaith and appropriate interfaith ministry that was inconsistent with the v a s requirements dr rosen the court recognized that dr rosenfeld appeared to have a preference for a more secular approach to ministry but that was not reflected in the official v a documents that describe the duties of a chaplain everything that chaplain blair was accused of she was performing consistent with the a's duties and of course when it comes to the facts as to whether she was capable of ministering to the jewish and i know in the end hospice patients there were abundant declarations from the family and friends of those patients just very where she worked in isolation right they function as an interdisciplinary unit this is certainly true and there are disputed issues of fact dr miller i'm sorry marilyn miller the dietician and dr glassman they said that she did get along well with others you know this is in some ways this is cut kind of a mean girl situation where you have the two women who are more secular spiritual or the chaplain player perceived her perceive them as more new age and they had been working together for some time excluding the new girl and forgive me if i use the girls i don't mean it in a demeaning way i guess she felt that how she thought her role was versus other people that i created some tensions with out of other people on the team but this also goes to something that the court  discuss so there's a number of different reasons given for why they wanted chaplain blair removed from the hospice unit and of course the legal standard is that discrimination need only be a substantial motivating factor the fact that there's all of this smoke and other issues going on doesn't detract from the focus on is there sufficient evidence of discrimination from which the jury  hired because she was a christian you're saying that they discriminated against you because she was a christian that is correct and the the testimony is that they perceived her as being lacking in tolerance which there is no  evidence other than their unsubstantiated perceptions you know that she was lacking in tolerance but that's really not the same as being fired because you're a christian i disagree because there's no evidence in the record that any of the folks at the hospice unit who rejected her had direct experience with her interaction with the patients those who had interaction with the patients who were able to see how she function does a chaplain they all submitted declarations and her support of god why wh this gets to the heart i think of the difficulty in understanding the religious discrimination here they were what the the v a recognizes the importance of chaplains being faithful to their own religious tradition and being able then to care for people in very different religious traditions that standard was not what dr rosenfeld and the others at the hospice unit supported they asked a rabbi for example not to use gut not to pray in god's name to pray a prayer that would not be within judaism prayer it was they were the ones that were intolerant of expressions of fa know it's clearly a disagreement between her and some of the people at least in the in the v a about what the japanese should be doing and how it happened should be doing the job  whether that's he's charging someone because he's a christian know so that if i met it it's true you know religious bias in this case may differ from many types of bias that we're more familiar with if someone subjected to an ethnic slur or words that we all know for black people jewish people asian people hispanic people it's easy to see that as an evidence of bias if a christian is called intolerant and unable to minister to non christians and there's absolutely no evidence of that that's the same kind of unsubstantiated  slur on their face the reason i don't see this as difficult in terms of the establishment clause or the constitutional framework is because she was functioning according to the  that this is a case of stereotyping that the evidence shows she was not intolerant that they were intolerant of her that they stereotyped her as being intolerant and therefore unable to fulfill her proper duties when in fact all of the evidence of the people that she was caring for showed that she was fulfilling her duties in a wonderfully interfaith and inclusive manner your case is essentially one  that you're kind of surmising is a circumstantial case because you you've acknowledged you have no direct debit i mean nobody made any slurs to her or said anything to her directly as i understand it well no i think there's a lot of to erect evidence because what very the basis of the decision that dr rosenfeld communicate was on account of her religion they said that let me find the they said these because she was a protestant or a christian they were going to let her go what what he said was chaplain blair has had extruding difficulty developing an understanding of the spiritual issues faced by patients on the unit and it was completely false so there were a b then and where is the evidence that they just didn't like her because she didn't partner here the way they wanted her to i mean i'm trying to find the direct evidence that you have that you say you have of discrimination predicated on a religion  i think when you why about someone based on complete hearsay lack of any specific information that the way that they are carrying out religious duties as a as a christian chaplain to me that's a direct that's the very basis of the decision was religious she wasn't the kind of religious trap one that they expected or wanted and it was completely based on nothing there was no evidence to support it and when there's no evidence that's bias that's prejudice is not just wrongful discharge no because it's because of her religion and where's the evidence is s where where where is the evidence of that though you see the the does record said ok here's a prim flips over to the other side they put a blip me of reasons down by which they justified their determination of your client and then the district court said ok where's the meat so to speak if i can call in in a commercial where's the beef and the district court said you couldn't come up with any it was just as well it must have been because she there's other people that say she was great in these people said she was a grade two a must have been religious discrimination i think when you miss characterize the appropriate interfaith ministry of a chaplain falsely as being intoleran rigid unable to minister to non christians that's a form of stereotyping her as an intolerant christian minister even john that's exactly what there is direct evidence but the difference is is it stereotyping here is an intolerant christian or an intolerant person i would say an intolerant christian minister as a chaplain and i get why she was like i certainly understand your argument difficulty with working as part of a team not withstanding chaplain blair's own opinion as to her qualifications and to what being a successful chaplain chaplain required the v a s reasonable expectations that each member of the interdisciplinary team be able to work collaboratively and function as a unit is entitled to deference here if he is also intitled to a favorable same actor inference under which chaplin vasquez's initial willingness to hire blair just months before he made the decision to remove her is extremely strong evidence that he was not biased against her because she is christian particularly whereas here blair was hired for a position that was specifically advertised as one for a protestant interfaith chapel here instead of making efforts to integrate with the rest of the staff blair made it clear almost immediately that she viewed her role as distinct from others she repeatedly endeavored to define the boundaries of her position and claim territory to those duties which she  but she viewed as within her sole responsibility simply put your honour's chaplain blair was not a good fit and that is well supported in the record significantly her difficulties continued even after her transfer to the west l a campus where she continued to demonstrate an inability to fulfil the basic requirements of her position essentially this is an interpersonal issue rather than a religious one and chaplain blair has not presented any authority that what she characterize s as a preference for a more secular approach to chaplaincy over a more religious one is probative of religious discrimination as as your honor correctly recognize the v a is a public secular institution with which serves individuals from a myriad of different religions including those who don't subscribe to religion at all thus in terms of its chaplaincy it must walk a very fine constitutional line between being able to minister to people of all faiths and provide religious services to those who request them without being in a position of endorsing any one particular religion or religion generally in essence your honour's the record is such that no trier of fact under these circumstances could reasonably conclude that the v a discriminated against chaplain blair because she is christian instead the record reflects that she was simply perceived as not being a team player which undisputedly was a crucial requirement of the hospice teams treatment model because she failed to establish that the agency's multiple legitimate business reasons for removing her were pretextual unless her questions we were just submit that the that the court affirmed the award of summary judgment in favor of the v was trying to think what to focus on i really don't think that this case has anything to do with the constitutional obligations of how chaplaincy is carried out in a federal government facility because all of the evidence shows that chaplain blair was an appropriate interfaith chaplain functioning according to the job description and i think what is  ignored here is that the v a had extensive written policies and obligations both in its own policies and under the collective bargaining agreement that if there were any deficiencies she had to be counseled and this is a probationary time where the whole point of probation is to help someone succeed the fact that they ran her off in less than two months with no counseling and no written oral warnings or opportunity to improve i think is very strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory us thank