that it kills the causation element of the crime of a case that's not the case here defendant abandon its disciplinary charges against claims of prior to terminations and focus on something else that this bill never went to a hearing light as a result of the disciplinary proceedings that are ongoing people started looking further at it and found the probation report that he received in two thousand and nine and back he was ordered to show up to get moving and at some point a few days after this most angry letter professional but angry then they decide to look into his past employment with the city to see what's going on that's an timeline rest on finding causation from is filing a request for reasonable accommodation because he makes the request and i believe october and he keeps sending letters telling he sending these letters that made it all with the commissioner you know what are you doing get moving on this this is bad faith you know he became a pain in the butt but sometimes you have to do that and you need even more competition from the large bureaucracy and at some point you know they open up  investigation even though a couple years earlier the same investigation had cleared him for employment so that's the connection between these protected activity and the and determination you know the district court i think the city argues that the six month gap between the protected activity and its terminations number one discourse is held at eight months isn't up to two of the inference number two the six months is is sort of an artificial time line because plaintiff is not responsible for the six months he's waiting six months for them to make a decision and you know as soon as he starts getting tough in his letters essendon to make a decision then they open up a fraud investigation so some of the crime especially case has been made out turning to the if they change their mind on the same issue with lots of the same evidence after he engages in be protected activity so for these reasons this case really needs to be heard by a jury there's a lot of issues back here about motive in intent why did they  him was part of the ultimate product of that period of progressive discipline that began long before he ever engages protected activity now alan has argued that his reasonable combination of course was ignored for months and that's simply a lie by the record she submitted a letter request for an accommodation on october th of two thousand and twenty it was responded to within a week by the diversity equal employment opportunity officer handling it he then supplemented that request on the number eight to commence the interactive process with him and that if you have any questions please contact or she sent that letter that you know to him on the morning of november th she then sent a letter later that same day to the commissioner complaining that  his request wasn't being considered and that it was a construct of the not so this notion that his request was wasn't being handled is a fabrication the record clearly shows that over several months and the person in charge of his request was trying to get him to reconcile how was over going to reconcile his overtime request with with his request for reasonable accommodation not to have a shift change and so there was no doubt there's no evidence the reps support that they on a reasonably delayed what will you run what i would say is that number one he needed to support his request with medical documentation matching a little bit of time he had st submitted a letter from a physician's assistant and asking for more substantial documentation six month period we're just talking about the temporal proximity right sure you want to but even assuming that six months or six and half months is not a long enough period of time it close the reason for terminating him was for that information to the investigations unit which then we conduct an investigation into his application and find that he's lied about the circumstances surrounding his departure from the former senate taishan in the new city housing authority so we're not talking about two different somehow tainted but we have a single investigation and the information that the information about is from the application process was it was an organic outgrowth of the investigation interest is it your view that slattery would require missile as a matter of law you know i think that those i mean obviously it's a different set of facts i'm not i admire yeah i mean i i think insufficiencies now you know i think slattery may very well still be out on a case just like that you know plaintiffs and no play for that matter should be able to shield themselves from justifiable discipline or justifiable termination by simply engaging in a protected activity in the midst of investigation and you know plenty in this case was a savvy employee and a savvy employee gets a whiff he was a lawyer who gets a whiff of the display investigation could s  gauger protected activity and all the information after that time then gets automatically tainted that doesn't seem to me to me to be the right outcome i also want to just one more point which is his claim that the investigation in his st there during the st background investigation they were completely unaware that he had been terminated from the new york city housing authority because of misconduct charges that were substantiated after hearing they did not find that out until the nd investigation at the york city housing authority he again had a theory he had a pattern of misconduct he was charged he had a hearing a claim substantiated he was in terminated of the ultimate product of an extensive period of progressive discipline and then there's no provocation case that what this court was sang was there has to be a connection you know the factual similarity between what preceded completely unrelated misconduct a couple of years earlier the the events of the relevant events in terms of motive is protected activity and whether they claim being gauged in good faith or reasonable accommodation and whether it is westerners was not reasonable the purpose of a crime