the question of jurisdiction was raised by the court because the judge under us twenty eight us see twenty one all seven allow me a sixty day extension on my motion to  at that time i was represented by a court appointed attorney who was withdrawing from the case because they did not wish to continue to graft or is it me through an appeal and he was asking for additional time for me to locate another attorney and to find out too to review my absence under an appeal and whether i wanted to proceed with the appeal i don't think there's jurisdictional question as to whether this case is allowable or or whether my motion was timely file i did file it within the timeline that the judge allowed and under twenty eight u s c twenty one zero seven there is no time restriction on when k on how long and judge can extend the case only under the conditions where the the palenque does not filed their motion within the thirty day period if it appears from everything i've read it that if it's filed within the thirty thirty day motion for appeal period that that was that that judge did have  us so i think that that question may be new but i have to argue did it extensively in my brief as well as in the original document that was requested by the court prior to this case coming to you so with that i'd like to move on to the to discriminate for discrimination and retaliation claim that i have before the court i have first i want to briefly address age and sex discrimination because i feel that the retaliation claim is a stronger claim here and that the evidence relating to the retaliation claim will support my claim of sex and age discrimination but just briefly on sex and age discrimination the basic facts of this case is that i had been employed in the fannie mae mortgage help center for a period of a year and a half as an intake specialise early on  n i started working there in june of two thousand and ten in december of two thousand and ten and between december and april i was experiencing a lot of  that was a result because i was working a lot of the time there was some changes in the department and i was the only person doing it and take care and their peers but that didn't you know i thought that my  tardiness is were being taken into consideration but upon being addressed in april of two thousand and eleven about them i determined that my feelings about it were incorrect and i changed my schedules and everything and and stopped being late however in july i did have it as sit in a being late and i had an incident where a head consultant with my  superior about some gas coming in and actually her if and informed her that i may be late and she said it would not be a problem for three days and then i experienced another period at the end like in october late september october where c t a had an unannounced schedule change and i got caught up in that but i corrected that and from october fourth two to the my communications which i was not aware of until being form informed of them in june two thousand and eleven that said the supervisor head problems with my communications when she informed me in june two thousand and eleven that she had problems i had adjusted my my communications and there were no other incidents of communication found in that period until the day i left the organization so backing into the age of sex discrimination claims my concern with this ruling of the district court is that the judge did not take into consideration any of mine what was considered my my experience or whether i was more qualified for the job or not he just took into consideration they though the determination by my superiors that their selection of the younger less experienced lesser that and said that was adequate to determine that they made their decision whether it was right or wrong or whether it was consistent with  know what should be considered his feeling was that the court is not and a super employment agency and that the  for the entire year they presented evidence that he made more calls he received x more calls incoming calls an idea but his job was to answer the phone mine was surely to an intake and working with the clients whose files that was working on so his calls would definitely be more than mine because fifty percent of his time was devoted to reception be perception is an answer and call the incoming call they also provided they say it that you know this is the production report that they provide it a suspect to you in the fact that like you said you can't prove yes it is your burden to prove if you can't prove the t the pretext then you are you understand that you can't move forward with the case so the question the question is whether the district judge appropriately ruled that there was no material issue effect as to whether the pretext in other words you say it happened for word reason the employer gave other reasons reproach the only thing that i could read was whether they honestly felt my tennis and communication which had been addressed and had been addressed in a career progression plan that they put together for me where they acknowledge that i had improved in my communication and attendance but they still wanted to look far to see if that was now under you know and the judges basic determination was that they believed that their criteria was that he was the better candidate however under hutchens versus chicago public schools it is determined that the belief that the whether the judge believes that is not appropriate for some of the judgments and that this is something that the jury should determine whether they believe the story  it please the court what occurred here is certainly unfortunate for miss haim are her appointed counsel and the district court apparently overlooked rule core eighty five c and as a result this ha did not file her notice of appeal within the time frame for acquired by that rule although unfortunate for ms hammer who was presumably simply relying upon her appointed counsel in the district court we believe this  we raised i'm january eighth more than two months before marriage briefing commenced in this matter but not on your own it was in response to an order from the court as i understand it there was an order from the court to december thirty first asking us to address the tim this of appeal right if you did you otherwise forfeiting you didn't raise it it's my motion well i would say that we didn't forfeit it because we did raise it whether it was at the request of the problem here is that the court gave more than the amount of time allowed by the rule the motion was timely filed the motion for an extension of time yes that's a little timely so it's just the duration of time at the court extended to the plaintiff to file a notice of appeal that's in question here yet and the district court's order exceeded the amount that some out under the rule yes but you didn't come back into court and say look at rule for you can't give that much time no we did not but according to the president of this court our failure to do so does not constitute forfeiture waiver the this court's precedent supports a rule that that what occurred would that we would not have committed forfeiture or waiver and unless we failed to raise it before marriage for a thing but we did raise it at before marriage rachel ray said more than two months before marriage briefing indignant we're aware of no rule order internal procedure  honor i believe that the president of this court in the supreme court sets up a dichotomy where there are jurisdictional rules that can never be forfeited or waived and then on the one hand or on the other hand there are claims processing rules that must be observed if way i the rule is clear that it must be this court must observe that mandatory rule that set forth and for there must be some excuses that are excepted i would say that the one area that there might be that one area where there might be a little wiggle room would be you know other than if you found that we forfeit in a way the argument which we don't believe we have for the reasons we've discussed but the other might be the other extent basis be the functional equivalent doctrine that we discussed and agreed that if her or her emotion or some papers she filed with the court amounts of the to the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal now we don't i was thinking of more things like a i can excuse anything right perhaps yes i think that runs into issues of excusable neglect that are really at issue here if you know the facts in this case where the she's not arguing s is not an excusable neglect standard it's simply there's a rule that says this is the amount you can only get thirty extra days under forty five see she she asked her through her appointed counsel she asked for sixty she got sixty  took almost sixty affirm that judgments as to miss hammer's discrimination claim which is a failure to promote a claim summary judgment should be affirmed because as an initial matter miss hammer feel to raise it in her initial brief and then did so only in a in a cursory and incomplete manner in her reply brief after we pointed this out secondly the summary judgment should be affirmed for the additional reason that the district court held that same or failed to show pretext as to all three reasons that any chess provided and declining to promote her into the mortgage counselor position namely a pattern of tardiness  a pattern of disrespect and unprofessional communications with her peers and her managers and that the individual chosen for that position kate simmons had superior production numbers than the same because she's failed to show pretext as to all of those reasons under the mills case the dismissal of the discrimination claim should be affirmed summary judgment should also be affirmed as hammers retaliation claim the there was a causal link between that internal complaint and her removal from the mortgage help center in other words under under nasser that the complaint was the but for cause of her removal she has not and cannot establish that as an initial matter that the district were properly found that's the two decision makers here robin coffee and toyah glenn had no knowledge of ms hammers complaint indeed both ms coffee and ms glenn both testify they were never informed of that complaint and ms anderson who received that complaint never told them about that complaint moreover ms anderson was not it was not involved in the removal decision thus under this court's nagel decision cited in our brief these decision makers could not have retaliated against misener because they simply didn't know about her internal complaint but yet even if they did know even if they did know about these the admissible evidence in the record establishes that n h s legitimately and a nondiscriminatory manner removed miss hammer from the from the mortgage help center having nothing to do several levels ahead above her own supervisor and in that e mail she inquired as to why she was not selected for that position she sent this e mail despite her supervisor mis that she not that she discussed first personal issues with her rather than fannie mae if i see my time is out if i may quickly close that was not the only reason for removal that particular e mail which continued to display her communication problems but it was additionally because markham green the site manager at fannie mae continued to report issues communication issues  with ms hamer at the facility in the time period leading up to the removal of the more help center for that reason ms hammer's not been able to establish a pretext as to the reasons for her removal and the judgment of the district court should be affirmed was sent to him because i was initially told i couldn't get the promotion because he did not approve of me he had a problem with me so this is i was sent to him just to get some feedback if not to change his opinion about select not selected me but to at least get some feedback that i could use to correct the problem that he proceeded however between february the seventh when that e mail was sent documentation a plan for developing me for the position which was addressed in the email to eric let wick on the twenty eighth i found my claim on the twenty seventh it on the morning of march february the twenty eighth and miss glynn instructed personnel to buy a plane ticket for me and to make hotel reservations for me to attend a st training in dallas texas at the end of march at twelve or sometime in the afternoon miss anderson an affidavit that she contacted miss glynn and to inquire about my complaint with her from that afternoon of february the twenty eighth to the morning of march first swimmin this anderson also sent an e mail to miss miss coffee to request a conference with her on a personnel issue which she did not name that i was issued this coffee sit back within an hour and e mail to miss anderson stating that the individual now must be removed from the program at the request of the client there was no mention of why she was being removed suffered say that she has become too much of an issue and takes up too much of our time to address no reference was made to whether i had performance issues and in fact on fed january thirty first a memo was sent to miss coffey recommending a merit increase for our staff