and we will hear blake nicole blake vs state of connecticut had worked for the state of connecticut department developmental services for approximately thirteen years the claims that were raised based on her discharge and addressed in the summary judgment  claims including retaliatory discharge and hostile work environment with regard to the retaliatory discharge claim the trial court in this case we claim eared  in analyzing the retaliatory discharge claim the court had in the k did that with regard to one of the incidents in her decision she indicates that the incident june  be could be a bit like sure she indicated that the incident of june two thousand and twelve had already been reported and thus the gated and substantiate prior to the october two thousand and twelve filing of a discrimination there is fundamentally you know you can talk about different think that what evidence is there that any of the things that happened to your were based on one of the things that is protected under the federal well what we claimed and what the record would reflect at summary judgment is that number one the plaintiff was african american black supervisor the director of the facility was hispanic the claim is that with regard to the incident there was an incident with regard to the legislation th patient was drinking from a cup without using a table the supervisor the record clearly reflects was called cajun was not disciplined but wait a second there's no doubt that the she violated  the standard with regard to the church with regard to the feeding incident that was there well any doubt about that no in no time so what does the race of the supervisor matter she was disciplined in accordance with the particular maybe that person did something else that was role maybe no but it was somebody i mean if you had had somebody else who was asian say or hispanic and who had done the same thing then you'd have some evidence but well and i think what i want to point out at the summary judgment stage what was presented was that the supervisor with regard to the same incident with the  drinking cup not being used from the table the supervisor was present at the same time that the plaintiff was with regard to the area where this happened so it's the question of fact that comes up is that you have to individual employees on the plane to be an african and wasn't the supervisors would well be the supervisor it may be that the supervisor did something wrong for not doing something it wasn't the supervisors job but it wasn't the same well i guess that's what i believe to question the fact that the reason why jury could find that they did have similar duties and that is the safety and care of the patient specific rule vic your client broke well if you things are just not the same i think are welcome not think but our argument is is that in the it with regard to that specific responsibility for patient services they both have the ultimate responsibility of patient services both were not treated the same and they were treated differently with regard to the other incidences to that  the judge the trial court judge with regard to the retaliation claim ignored the fact that with regard to the loudermilk hearing that although the complaint was filed two thousand and twelve that was prior to trial court disregarded the incident the first incident where we claim that the second incident where the plaintiff was treated differently and said that well there was already progressive disciplinary process in effect our argument at summary judgment is that just because a progressive disciplinary process had started it had not been decided and the c h r o complaint was filed prior to the loudermilk hearing opportunity no decision should have been made yet about discipline because the whole purpose of the loudermilk hearing is to an employer can't discipline an employee that violates the rules and commence a just they're proceeding then the employer files  complaint the employer can't proceed for fear of retaliation well generally how does the result how does the result become in indices of retaliation what well because at was it off the charts in terms of the context of what was done because what was done here is that at the hearing she was asked to withdraw they knew so in other words the evidence was introduced to show that at that they had notice number one of administrate of charge against them and number two that they raised it at the lower mil hearing saying please you know that to withdraw when you sit down i ask you to read your statement of the case in your briefs on page two of your opening to the telling us what you're thank you your honor good morning may please the court my name is assistant attorney general jennifer bennett and i represent the app wholly in this case the state of connecticut department of developmental services your honour's this case is about a former  employee who was terminated after she received two successive unsatisfactory performance review reviews resulting from progressive discipline related to three separate cases of substantiated client neglect the plaintiff through her actions but the most vulnerable of populations at risk and d d s had the obligation to address the plaintiff's actions which it did through three separate independent investigations and utilizing progressive discipline in accordance with the collective bargaining unit and ultimately deciding to terminate the plaintiff because of her actions and this case the plaintiff relies on me or assertions in her affidavit which is certain points contradict her deposition testimony and she has presented no concrete evidence of discrimination or retaliation the district court properly found that no reasonable jury could have found that discrimination or retaliation were the real reasons for any of the actions taken with regards to the briefly address some points that opposing counsel brought up with regards to the incident of drinking coffee at the table there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that plaintiff supervisor either was or was not disciplined point of conduct and no discovery on that fact plaintiff did not request records to that effect plaintiff did not depose either well anyone in this case therefore there is no evidence in the record whatsoever as to whether or not the supervisor was disciplined furthermore if i point the court's attention to the record at page eight hundred thirty six the supervisor was not even present when the client was drinking the coffee she was in the back of the unit cleaning the women's bathroom so she had no knowledge that the the improper positioning at the table was even occurring with regards to the and said in in june of two thousand and twelve wherein mrs blake receive issue does your honor even if we concede that there is some sort of temporal proximity that gets the plaintiff over that hurdle of a prima facia case the defendant has presented ample legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for his actions and there has been no offer of proof not nothing that a re asonable could jury could find as a reason for pretext and for any of the actions taken whether it be discrimination or a television and if there are no further questions are so my brief thank you what just a follow up with regard to the pretextual aspect of it it is our contention that with regard to the separate instances which we timelines and charted in the reply brief that she was treated differently  with and that's what the pretextual aspect of it was is that she was treated differently so such as for example with regard to the van incident the other individual in the van who also had a one on one patient w there was a disparate treatment of employees as to the same incidences that were raised here so for example with the van incident the other individual in the van was not disciplined same thing with the drink but being used at the table that individual employee was not disciplined either so with regard to if there was a policy that was to be uniformly applied that was not in that as a result it was  find that the supervisor was in the proximity of the individual such that we can say that that supervisor was equally culpable in some way and that this is pretextual because that discriminatory and i think i could just point to the affidavit of in which she indicates that the supervisor was in charge of the unit and was supposed to so she doesn't say that she was present she was in charge of the unit once in charge and present that day and the