four years later in two thousand and thirteen received a favorable decision from an administrative law judge finding that he had in fact been retaliated against by a first line supervisor schmidt second line supervisor  activity then an adverse action was not an adverse action putting him back in the same place absolutely not no we are not claiming that that is an adverse action after he had been reinstated to his position  lucy and or lord began a subjecting mr lewis to different terms and conditions of employment he had directed boer war two go to mr lewis's coworkers and solicit only negative information about him and only about primary bases that we consider to be a retaliatory action and another primary focus of retaliatory action is mr lewis the first line supervisor mr schmidt when a meeting with mr l would require the witness to be present during the ego hearing for his first action mr smith and made it under oath that the only reason he was requiring a witness to be present for meeting with mr lewis because of his prior activity no other reason the agency had followed most for summary judgment the court granted that motion and the reason we believe that the court erred in this regard and believe the court applied the incorrect standard and it's the station i'm paid just thirty four thirty five and thirty six the court refers to the retaliatory action the adverse action as requiring that it be related to employment and adverse employment action and that is not the correct legal standard for title seven retaliation under title seven retaliation what is required is that mr lewis present sufficient facts to show that threats giving rise to harassment that could be an adverse action if there is a threat of force that could be an adversary action for again title seven retaliation that is not the same case for title seventh discrimination hostile work environment and again it appears from the court's ruling that they applied the title seven discrimination and hostile work environment standard as opposed to the retaliation standard but what is the consequence us certainly and mr lewis as in the record because of each instance of retaliatory conduct he felt various forms of anxiety depression fear for his job again we have to remember just four years earlier he had gone through the exact same scenario with the exact same people rob lucy smith and board were or his terminated for these things now he's reinstated he's seen the exact same and got out of that department because of what he was experiencing the reality tory conduct would kind of you know i was he transferred into ultimately i believe he was transferred into a role where he was assisting patients pushing them i'm sorry that a reasonable coworker like me would have been dissuaded from ing and statutorily protected activity based on what mr lewis suffered at the hands of reduced or wart and she met the court then went but going further than that the court indicated that mr lewis assumed that because he experienced this fear anxiety all these things coming coming as a result of the retaliatory action that that didn't establish a causal connection but what the negative information about mr lewis only the agency has tried to paint that in terms of the training that it was a for training purposes there's two big problems with that first of all the a l j in the first case in order that mr lewis be provided with a happened there cannot be a legitimate business purpose for taking that action and there it the only possible explanation as to why it had occurred was because mr lewis prior activity mr  see i'm close to five minutes i'd like to reserve the rest of that  improper conduct in terms of going to northern and the various the task that they were addressing in that case the court put the circuits but kind of in three different sections so on the most restrictive and was that their first action had to be a term or condition of employment and the middle ground is what sensor can actually previously already appear to which is exactly what i recited that and it's the employee's first active and there but it is an objective absolutely and then the third one is what the ninth circuit had previously but here too which is a coworker observing conduct from the outside and the reason why this is important is because this court has shown that or has held that it is easier to deter altruistic action from a coworker observing conduct but yes it's  having to relate to an employee's job so it doesn't have to be an employment action as well as the role of contacts and these are actually both red herrings because they don't affect the fact that the there are examples in the cases cited by both parties here with respect to the proposition that in burst action is not required to relate to employees jobs that cannot crystallize the issue so examples of retaliation and actual retaliation not relating to employment include the refusal country in a policy to investigate that threat and employer filing criminal charges threat violence blackballing among pressed prospective employers shooting someone actions that make it more difficult for employee took picture future employment and falsely accusing an employee of cook or do whatever he's doing every day during the two words he's working with people he doesn't like you know they haven't treated him well and they're doing all that irritating things and then we say well themselves and determine whether there is a perception and one way of looking at that is a think about if there was how diverse the situation changed before and after each incident the answer really where there is some concrete harm to the employee and i mean the insider and unite the government sprint state fans and employees not who's particularly sensitive to employer sites receives no greater protection and so for an action and again we're looking at them individually to rise to the level of an arc title seven vs retire traction whether or not someone is reacting to a stream to to an action and so dressings id and concerns about just free action are just simply not enough provision that retaliation does not need to relate to employment doesn't create a loophole for actions that are not material or significant and nor then as well as kids in the circuit it's been hard time timing and that materiality is implicit in the word discriminate and going back to his claim of are pies only not in other claims of discrimination or anything like that and are there in the same sentence even the supreme court states that the test is objective but weekly training lunch that can contribute significantly to professional advancement as opposed to lunch which is simply just which is deemed trivial so the significance of an act depends on  year and half after he lets me stated but i can be corrected on that another incident that comes to mind to address your concern is when she met the allegations that she met one of the supervisors change  thank you i'd like to just began by referencing your question about the transfer mr lewis had requested a transfer very early on when he began experiencing these what he considers to be retaliatory actions nothing return after his return they just he did nothing he requested multiple times and that he was finally granted the opportunity to transfer april twenty fifth he did complain repeatedly to he old program manager on the same as william johnson and as counseling kit is a separate section from human resources but the individual is there to hear complaints of discrimination we cally ation any types of those issues are brought to him and that's where mr lewis went with those complaints so he position that the district or apply the impression standard requiring an adverse employment action which is not required here the proper which has now been discussed a number of times and gives me one of the conduct would have dissuaded a reasonable worker an gore was very vocal about his position on mr lewis and he would be reinstated that position he was very vocal about the e o process and feeling was unfair that mr lewis had to obtain reinstatement through the process in addition we have mr smith complaining about harassment or discrimination we would respectfully i disagree with that we believe that a result three could conclude that it and in conjunction with the again the thirty days of soliciting negative information about m