the court knows gives case involves two issues involving what constitutes intolerable working conditions under oregon wrongful constructive just charge law as well as the issue preemption issue this case is the situation where there is no complaint about safety it's simply clearly repeatedly  and as i said it really is a situation where it's repeatedly complaints about this is don't find conduct as illegal it's illegal not under any safety stance you under the environmental laws regulating  pesticide and the application of pesticides and there is no discussion as to workplace safety that play to the safety of the technicians applying the pesticide or  bonding or not there is an application process which requires throwing out certain forms it's not very well developed in the record and part of the issue in this case that is what is required at what tara because get to this is what i believe is really the core issue in this case and that is under oregon wrongful constructivist charge law what is the standard of intolerable working conditions and i think that the one of the feel compelled to resign so there is the quality of it that you have to look at the individual plaintiff in his can in his particular position and that is why in this case the conduct prior to january nine hundred ninety nine when he makes that the opposition to vo eagle activity in that conference call in january prior to that there is some retaliation placed on some prior complaints and the court erred in not considering that ruling that it was irrelevant and the error the reason that there is that if you don't consider that you're making two errors when you're not putting it you're not considering the individual in the employee's position in mr gibbs position you're also not a considering the cumulative effect you can't pick a court nor do we argue that starts with us it's critical that we do not isolate the individual aspects of the pattern of conduct that starts in january it starts with the intense conference call in  lawful one of the things that isn't as obvious in the in the written briefing is that this aspect of we're willing to pay the penalties and that is repeated  in the in the next call and is repeated later from whether it and that willingness to pay the penalty is a statement prior to the defendant of we don't care that you're telling us it's unlawful to get kids due to his resistance to that illegal activity because that then influences the the how the court looks at him how a jury would look at the  because of it they sort of to undermine his authority they talk to employees behind his back he said ing out when he's trying to implement working nature but you're right we're not relying simply on he goes behind his back and causes difficulty there is the there is the meeting in march to get sam i'm sorry in april retaliate tory conduct and the animists the rich if there is a hostile conduct and the retaliatory animists to get rid of my client before that april meeting i'm jumping around better finish here for me contains negative comments about him being below standard his attitude being a problem there's the fire your evaluation where he's criticized for being  but again it's a pattern there's the investigation in february after the reports there's a march performance review and again in that performance review the nature of the criticism reflects a retaliatory animists he's criticized for his handling of internal customers he's criticized for his rigid style nothing controversial and he's criticized for needing improvement in corroboration there's to get sam meeting in april there's which is followed by quitters hired and then ultimately he goes after that meeting which agreed to be fired followed by the  off and this goes to your i hear that doesn't he have to rely upon the top the links to the illegal conduct and his treatment because that during his week off in april he finds that they are making field legal applications and he quite you actually point well you know it's this is an awkward constructivist charge because he says i can't work under these conditions and they  say well they're not going to change you gotta learn to bear and give me a letter of resignation unfelt up the paperwork that he's resigned april thirtieth even though he hasn't resigned he goes to the upper management exp situation of a management not knowing about the paperwork having been filled out by love it says well consider yourself still employed that's a sham investigation so it's all there's no problem no corroboration so i guess at that point he's resigned but it's it's it's a little different in some situations there's not a formal resignation in that regard i will save the remainder of my time for trained and can safely apply the pesticides and to protect their for the workers on site and anybody else who happens to be in that promises whether it's a home or a commercial flight so it would hazard thereby removing the public health part of this in the public policy part of this from the case leaving us with a case under directly under he or osha standards of protecting the worker in the workplace interests wise i'm worried i will lose my license and i am worried that you are doing something illegal and that will cause me to have trouble but under the or osha standard anything that touches protecting the greater public or he was protecting his own interests or he was protecting the other employees you look at what's laid out and what the white house and the or osha standards then would apply getting a massive clear message after the very last letter signed by president raul on the thirtieth of april encouraging him to get back and talk to him about what his job back together getting hi illegal activity that's what the argument was and it wasn't he wasn't he didn't make statements about public health you can't make statements about workplace sales he didn't make statements about health but that doesn't mean the policy underlyin environmental straightness doesn't support wrongful destruct environmental protection i don't need to correct one thing and that is that i don't believe there is anything in the evidence in the record where my makes that he engaged in illegal activity the there is evidence that in the months prior to april well the first of all the evidence was in january he could rearrange things even though he hadn't been suggested to do  could rearrange things so it wasn't illegal in january and there's evidence that in the later months february and march people working under him or mr herbalist with certain people out  unlicensed when my client was down in salem trying to get there were several licenses so he go off and try to get try to accommodate what they were proposing to get the work done and the illegal activity would be engaged and then there is a clear