our next case for argument this morning is king against the ford motor company believed in missions in employment discrimination are rare graham warns declaration exposing labor relations should have been front and center instead it was left on the cutting room floor ford's claim that was prejudiced by morton is pure unadulterated fiction work and was no surprise he was a ford employee of the union share his name was mentioned each times and wanted king's deposition twice during that deposition she said the morton told her that she was being punished for taking the lead additionally so did the district court judge overlooked that in the review of the records  see so mentioning mr morton in the responses king then supplements rule twenty six disclosures with those responses so i'm at a loss as to how  the motion to reconsider or during the response of the motion for summary judgment that was did the supplementing the disclosures that was all done prior to prior to summary judgment and reconsideration  you've admitted and therefore exclude excluded in terms of considering that argument at summary judgment i mean think of plenty of cases including packer someone recently that say unless you specifically psych that evidence in the record occurred as not required to search the record to find yes and i'm through with that case and i recognize that this argument it could have been fleshed out better there's no there's no question about that but it's far as the prejudice issue goes again you know this is this is an employee this is not an expert witness this is not some you know third party that for doesn't know about the terms of prejudice discovery that already closed at a not well it had already but even if we pretend mr morton's expos does not exist it's easy to see the interference in their tele asian labor relations inflicted want a king had a habit of invoking her rights she objected to her indicating the miss king is under her care and that she will be she will be on leave until the end i'm up in fourth there's conflicting evidence as to the deadline of the quickness the termination signed so it was april second throughout his deposition mr wynn said the date was april second not until the waning pages of the deposition does he change his mind and say it's april first so for can't keep its story straight so for these reasons the actions that king took and the actions and inactions are for a reasonable jury could find the response was satisfactory submitted a statement from miss king's dr ration that she had satisfied the time and given given the fact that it's kind of a just kind of an empty statement or without any evidence supporting it is that it's not fair i would say the analysis was somewhat bacon but when you combine her her doctor ration her statement along with the evidence in the record which which was raised and which is clear reconsideration that was the evidence it was from his declaration so it was it was the evidence was in existence before summary judgment as as far whether that was raised again i mean part but also this other evidence again which i think is is pretty rare pretty unique that an employer admits that it has trouble accounting for its own time and again i would invoke mr moore and i on this issue and he shed light on the true nature of labor relations and this is the same labor relations that calculates or at least monitors the and it's also a labor relations the abuse sexual harassment with all the concern of an elephant for a flea and this is worlds apart from the sanitized by the book labor relations that's portrayed in the the deadline for their response and whether there was interference and retaliation under title seven and a family and i also know what evidence do you submit that demonstrates that the people responsible for the various adverse actions are even aware of her protected activities other than the clothes or e statements i don't recall any evidence recognize that the ninety days expired for her to sue but i think that demonstrates that that essentially was kind of the opening sell that came from miss king i mean she had also made for employee and i harassment that that put her at loggerheads with labor relations and made her persona non grata and if you look at mr moore and what is the evidence of that connection i mean those are evidence to show that her supervisor who was aware of the alleged harassment was somehow involved in any adverse action well that not specifically regarding michael reefs but i think it set the tone as far as her being moved from from different stations different sections she had asked repeatedly to be moved back to the headlight aim so that was their way of essentially punishing her by not putting her where she had asked to be despite her seniority twenty twenty two twenty three years there's no causal connection so what's what's the evidence that that connection exists well i think the connection is that that mr wynn and natalie derringer they knew that she had complained repeatedly that she'd call this hotline and they're obviously you know the ball that's in labor relations that ramps through this terminations or so i think is as far as the connection goes you know admittedly it's not you know day declaration or not i think given the fact that she repeatedly complained to her to her supervisors to labor relations and ultimately to the e e o c i think that is a backdrop that plaintiff was terminated or experienced other adverse employment action as a result of her protected activity the only reasonable record based conclusion is that the plaintiff was terminated because she failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the week absence from work and that none of the other adverse actions alleged by plaintiff had any causal link to her protected activity i'd like to start with the morton declaration plaintiff did in fact disclose mr morton but those into rocketry responses were not served until december the twelfth twenty fourteen which is six weeks after the close of discovery on october the thirtieth twenty fourteen plaintiff's fifth supplemental set of responses therefore cannot cure her rule twenty six a violation in addition fleeting references to mr morton in plaintiff's deposition are not a remedy for her failure to disclose mr morgan in her twenty six a disclosure if an opposing party that required to depose every individual referenced in a multi hundred page deposition then discovery would never come to an end and would be far more burden e and costly than it already is plaintiff's depositions and three hundred and fifty pages there was nothing in that deposition to alert ford that mr morton had the type of discoverable information that she ultimately came forward with in his declaration when she became aware that mr morton had discoverable information she was obligated to request that reopened or that summary judgment briefing be extended she didn't ask for either of those alternative measures of relief the district court therefore acted well within its discretion when it struck the morton you then have sought or an extension or a reopening of discovery at that time for was not obligated to request that alternative plaintiff's obligation when she discovered after the of discovery that mr morton had what she describes as highly relevant information to offer up the alternative of reopening discovery so that ford would have the opportunity to depose her star witness in advance of the summary judgment briefing plaintiff never suggested to the district court that discovery be reopened or that summary judgment briefing be pushed back so i did file a motion to  ke those late submissions we didn't move to strike the supplemental discovery responses we did move to strike mr morton's declaration right at the district court ordered supplemental beefing on that issue and acted well within its discretion in light of the rule twenty six and a violation and the severe prejudice to forward to strike the morning declaration on the issue of f m l a eligibility plaintiffs rests her arguments on her unadorned conclusory assertion that if improper absences without leave and improper disciplines are removed from her record then she would have worked the red was it twelve hundred fifty hours in the twelve month period preceding her alleged request for f m l a leave in march twenty third team that type of conclusory unsubstantiated assertion is insufficient to give agree with that characterization of ford's kind keeping records ford has acknowledged that on occasion in light of the fact that the chicago assembly plant employees four thousand hourly employees working three different shifts that time keeping her separate complaints to the illinois department of labor where she alleges that she was underpaid on various days for work at the chicago assembly plants but those allegations are just that they are  in any event setting that issue aside plaintiff still had the obligation to come forward with some evidence that she had worked the requisite twelve hundred fifty hours during the twelve month period proceeding her alleged  she doesn't provide any basis for that calculation she doesn't provide any estimate of that number of hours that she worked within that twelve month period she doesn't identify which accesses without leave or which if if if you believe or if you accept which a summary judgment i would think you would have to that nurse campbell didn't fact tell king that you've given us enough information to remain on leave lead was document no your honor the fact a quick notice for acquired plaintiff either to return to work by april the first twenty thirteen or provide a satisfactory reason to the human resources department for her continued absence from work plaintiff does not provide any evidence of her communications with the human resources department in any event there is no evidence to suggest that there was some sort of some type of grand scheme or  between miss campbell at the medical department and mr wynn in the human resources department to lead plaintiff astray and somehow place obstacles in her weight complying with the five day week notice that is conjecture it's far fetched and it's insufficient for plaintiffs to mount the summary judgment threshold saying even if the five day quit notice was in appropriately issued there's still no evidence to suggest it was would not acknowledging that she was in a position to determine that the five day quick notice was improperly issued a five day quit notice is or to magically generated by the medical department once a employee is absence without leave or her leave has expired on that basis the human resources department then sends out the five day quick notice that notice it is clear that mrs king had two options either return to work within five working days or provide a satisfactory reason to the human resources department for her continued absence plaintiff doesn't point to any evidence that she provided that satisfactory reason to the human resources department and she doesn't provide any evidence that mrs campbell in the medical department was somehow in cahoots with mr wynn the h r decision maker who terminated plaintiff mr wynn testified he terminated plaintiffs because she failed to comply with the obligations of the five day quick process this court has already examined the five day quit process in brown versus order multiple components the two thousand and ten decision and concluded that an a plaintive who request f m l a leave must still adhere to the requirements of the five day quit process because that process is objective it's standardized and it's collectively bargained on behalf of ford's employees plaintiff had every opportunity to provide the requisite information to the human resources department she failed to do that she at most left voicemail messages for the human resources department but in this litigation she never once came forward with the contents of those voicemail messages she also points to an april second fax from her treating physician but that fax was sent one day too late on april second rather than april first the deadline for compliance and it was sent to the wrong entity it was sent to ford's third party benefits administrator unit care not to the human resources department the language of the fight a quick notice is clear it's unambiguous that protected activity and her terminations in this case because mr wynn testified clearly and unambiguously that he terminated plaintiff because of her failure to comply with by date process there is no evidence that calls into question mr wins motive there's no evidence of some grand conspiracy between mr wynn and the medical department to beat plaintiffs astray this is a process that is objective it's standardized and it's the means by which ford manages believes and terminations of the four thousand hourly employees police at this plant it's a non discretionary process that enables ford to manage its employees and an orderly reasonable even handed manner plaintiff had access to union representatives if she had any questions about how to comply with this notice and she in fact indicates that she spoke to those union representatives during  day period if she had any doubts about what was needed to comply the resources were available to her the union would not have agreed to this five day quick process if it weren't fair standardized and to undermine those offers for should not be allowed to capitalize to prevail on its own dereliction of duty and ignoring king's true voice mails counsel talks a lot about the paperwork and labor relations in the middle medical department well these two departments they were the bermuda triangle of the corporate world documents went in and they never came out so how king should be held responsible for animists of the medical department and labor relations is beyond me as far as mr morton it's the combination of factors the fact that he was mentioned in the deposition two times specifically that he had knowledge that mr king was being punished for taking leave it's in addition to that in iraq the tour responses and finally the fact again that he  ford employee not an expert witness not some stranger third party unrelated so it's the confluence of these things and furthermore ford had the opportunity to come forward with af reese from guy at saying that mr morton was being untruthful or incorrect in furthermore the test on this issue on the disclosure issue is prejudice the test is not whether a formal rule twenty six template was used if there was a test we would lose but the test is prejudice and based on the fact that mr morton is a four employee and the union chair there cannot be any surprise asked for counsel statements about a grand conspiracy we never allege this we never argued this we're not sure if ms campbell and the medical department had any relation or connection with the labor relations and whether it was ineptitude or animists we don't know and those are questions for a jury in fine council states that miss king should have called the union well she did call the union and the union told her make sure  labor relations call them out of the park call everybody you can and she did that and labor relations again simply ignored her calls and never respond they should not be able to capitalize on that