figuring out exactly what the case was about  i gather that there was an objection to having been asked for twelve urine samples over the course of fourteen years my understanding is that that is the case that that is what he submitted  filing a complaint well they were they were applying pressure and then there were no understand what that means a fine well the in the discussion about the training program which i had not previously known about was intended to make me feel like i was somehow going to ruin it for all the rest of my fellow employees if i didn't accept an extension for this what is not mentioned there is that i had initially chosen a representative for my complaint and that was shot down by saying that i would need to expand i would need to expand extend the time for the for the complaint investigation because he was going to become a manager and they somehow something that would be good for you something some benefit to you probably would yes i thought it was a pretty program for in terms of something now it was just it was circuit knoxy indiana indicate that does not have to be an employer or some or supervisor fellow employees can be and make the poor and liable for retaliation in any event what you say is the best evidence that you were discriminated against we don't have in the excerpts of record  but he never produced any evidence whatsoever or more does he point to any evidence to this court showing that there was any malice other than conclude reallocations for example in his informal brief at page sixty two he says it should be clear that all of this is motivated by discriminatory animists but he doesn't point to any basis for any evidence for this quote court to look at or for the district court to have looked at to determine that there might have been some discriminatory motive without some evidence to support each element of his claim and malice or or improper motive is one of those elements mr wittman complaint case could not survive summary judgment mr whitman his pleadings under affirmation but those pleadings are only evidence to the extent that they relate to personal knowledge again those planes have allegations of malice but there is no evidence other than the conclus is no evidence at all not even a scintilla concerning at the very least motivation mr what minister that there was improper motivation but there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the injuries that he complains of were secretly evidence of a talent well your honor that's actually not what happened and not even mr whitman cannot deny and you can ask him directly on row on rebuttal and we said this in our brief and gave him an opportunity to respond to it this was the there was no training program that it was in existence that was going to be taken away e e o c our officers contrary to what mr whitman's assertion can help broker settlements they have to be neutral parties they can't take a side they can't take the government side or the employees side but they certainly can broker settlement and mr whitman supervisor suggested as a possible basis for settlement certain training opportunities mr whitman refused to continue they were up against the deadline for the informal phase of the of this complaint and mr whitman refused to continue the informal phase of the complaint he had misplaced in his brief to this court and his pleadings below and that's why the settlement the offer of training fell apart because mr whitman would not continue the informal aspects of the record there is just no material dispute of material fact concerning that training opportunity submitted but there but there was no genuine issue with you just looked at the material that was submitted in support of and in opposition to the summary judgment and we held that it was incumbent upon the party resisting summary judgment to submit the material with the opposition or within the opposition to point to the material in other words to say in the memorandum look at such and such a declaration filed in the earlier time yes that's that's  honor and mr whitman as i said was under a mistaken assumption about his ability to produce evidence he thought he was barred by law that's incorrect but he had he had evidence that he could have submitted and he chose not to do so and use the plane's burden to show whitman had the burden here proving that he engaged in a protected activity that there was an adverse action and that there was a connection namely a motive connecting the adverse action to the protected activity he utterly failed to point to any evidence whatsoever about motive and all he