fifteen and said if you don't take an early retirement today you don't be fired first thing in the morning and the summary judgment record shows that he was under a lot of pressure that day as one piece of medical evidence in the that's a jury issue as to whether it was constructive discharge the trial court did not make of signing in that regard simply assume that there was a fact issue as constructive discharge and went on to to decide the remaining elements of the case my second point is if there was constructive discharge it was of was a violation procedural due process because of inadequate pre term a nation notice and hearing you know run  charge number two they have to be an explanation of the employer's evidence number three that has to be an opportunity to present the employee's side of the story and number fo parks information about the appeal procedure did you have any further discussion with him at any time concerning the right to hearing or right to stay his side of the story or anything of that nature and he said no dress is what is the relevance of the evidence of the violation of the federal testing procedures we do not continue this the evidence of these violations in of itself prove prove a this was the mr part did not have an opportunity to discuss or dress the the violation of these these testing procedures and if he had added to due process he would have been able to do so i'm so to summarize a violation of taste testing procedures in three ways a note at the outset that the court of the federal regulation of the purpose is to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the test as there was no valid inception of the chain of chain of custody the federal regulations on equivocally require the collector of the urine to certify that the it was of the federal regulations a second clear violation as it was no split sample cited this in in the braves but the federal regulations require a split sample at least to send at least two samples and there was notes but sample here in preparation for the argument a found forty nine c f r section forty point eighty six one eighty seven eighty one and they say that if there's no positive test that had all the medical medical evidence tried it tried to discuss that to him and have that one on one conversation with him he didn't do that in this case in this case a nurse reported this is posed this test is good and he said a new home with nothing and it's exactly in conformity with the with the testing regulations that the positive test is not to be reported it when the absence of a safe following of the regulations you know this is simply essentially invalid in terms of the regulations it is really prejudicial to because the only other and say had process adequate procedures that someone must be afforded the the second the third topic i'd like to discuss is those availability of a grievance procedure hearing or clans that the plaintiff in a case like this must prove that the defendant had the specific intent the prior to deprive him of pre term anation due process and with respect to the district court it does come from about about that that must be followed secondly just generally pin state police version sitters a constructive discharge case is it's a side it objectively it's not based was filed by tara parks against a terrible power of consolidated government and if you look at them in the complaint you got to see what they asked for mr parks had retired from the powers a few days from prescription of i think of money in the private actors and what they do but they everything nate did we went the extra mile to make sure everything was done right there is in this case no genuine issue material fact to support a done neighbor in differen hundred three action against a terrible powers consolidated government ok you got to think in terms of what transpired here we have a random program for safety sensitive employees mr parks tested positive mr parks said going through seven prior drug test and had filed a pre n f l previous grievances with the parish before he was openly familiar with everything he is correct his client was a long time employee he had access to policies he even said testimony he knew the policies with regards to when you test positive for drugs don't window as to which you can do from his standpoint in somewhat limited to the person but he was given a pre term an asian process he was notified as is in as is required by the parish he was notified by supervisor that he had failed his drug test from then went to the human resource management or to go he admitted to his super missed or don't his supervisor you have to not be discharged for a reason you have to be in good standing so that is why when he called mr hawkes call mr r to go nuts with the testimony if you can look at told that if you do not retire in good standing and if you terminated that will affect your ability to receive holsworth tama health benefits he was also that he could have the results retested that is if that is basically when somebody in his situation gets caught you tell him that that's what you are you tell them is listen you can go have your test you can have valar the volume the collected collects the urine the collect the said he handed it to him and he thought that he had initial but that's not considered a fatal fall and that would be something that the government is responsible was when he was advising given the form that he busted it at some point in time he started gathering information so he wanted a copy of the seal well they had to go back to the lab to get to see a well what he says on a non d o t d and where the policy allows because it says that the terrible power of policy says that these are garments so when they apply it when he said was in the louisiana he can his staff to contact the person about their urine to discuss in the here's the here's what they try to find out his staff has a form the forms in the record the young lady called process is to make sure that the test and the test was done valid the parish has there was no motivation in this except to help mr parks now it does have an a policy in the policy states that if you bust a up to five years it didn't put in there you don't have to right before the criminal statute in town of the fourth amendment in taht of the fifth amendment the fourth the them him an eighth amendment the parish knows what it had to do and it did what it had to do before he made his decision  have done when they did is they because he was a long term employ they gave him out and they went to the parish president and said would you make an exception to lead terry retard so that they were going on his health insurance she did not have the requisite number of years to make eligibility ok she was planning on retirement she had to work another five years so they had to he had to make a decision  post grievance like guess what if he loss loss he would have been a terminated employee he could've taken at he could've taken a route he chose to take that route the next thing i want to address is about his retirement in a way he voluntarily retard there's a presumption that he knew he was doing not going to go through and breakdown these cases very well there's no issue here between subjective and objective because there's no evidence that mr parker presented that would be dead would lead anybody whether it's on an object of a subjective test he has no evidence to show that the parish had a motivation in dynamic him pre some motivation against harry porks to do them some wrong he knew he wasn't supposed to use drugs he's in a safety sensitive position which he admitted himself and that was the  the point was to collect i'm saying i wouldn't take all these people's deposition i think they did everything right but if they allege and somebody neglected something wanted to go pursue their cause of action against those people those private contractors parish he did it's in the record but it is not attached to pages and talk about where it says that day adopt the federal and louisiana as guidelines so you've got to read the entire odyssey in global you just can't pick out and say this is what this section say this i'm going to conclude today that he says in the record but there's no record reference i don't know how the council and the courts go dig through the oh twenty three hundred pages of record reference to see if this piece of paper is in there i don't know but anyway he says today that  e with those regulations was part of that the finding of the it was violation of due process the question is a great one what more could they have done well what they could have done it at a given impre terminations notice and access to the employee employers evidence they could have been some in ministre view addressing of this issue about the drug testing whether the drug testing was valid and that was never afforded c to th employed is not a substitute for the compliance with the mandatory minimum procedures set forth by the supreme he white i'm sorry but he waived that if he wanted to he could but he in this case but i contend that once he once he was approved for the drug program his retirement benefits vested in that town and that includes the health insurance that sets you'd say if you went to