dismissal on his reading of your complaint to not have alleged actual knowledge by the decision makers as your clients protective activity there so is that you want to speak to that whether that's incorrect legally decisions of ours that seem to suggest you have to allege actual knowledge it can't just be temporal proximity in your reply brief you cited the supreme court's breeding decision in our mccoy decision that miss wright was required to allege actual knowledge and as i read union pacific argument it seems to say that if miss wright had included a lie in her complaint that said something like information and believe the decision maker had actual knowledge protected activity the two thousand and eighteen complaint then that would be enough to satisfy ru berndt shit was aware of the twenty complaint and in particular i want to highlight the change in the allegation that miss merchant changed her approach to  to proceed with coaching with representation and there was even a a date set for that representation and then miss marsham as miss right alleged didn't show up for that meeting and actually wasn't at work today perhaps in the meantime of the protected activity i just want to add also terms of the cases that union pacific sites on the you know question whether mrs wright was required to allege actual knowledge and that's that page twenty four and twenty five the response brief again is as mr murphy said those are all summary judgment cases and as this court emphasize and seek elisei a pla  union pacific cited the robinson decision is helpful because that case points out that there might be a situation that summary judgment or a decision maker denies knowledge or protected activity and that's the case here and robinson cited in particular the decision makers changed behavior following complaints and evidence of pretexts even where the decision maker denied knowledge of the protected activity there was we argued that there were sufficient facts that to make knowledge plausible in this case which is which is all that's required under this court's precedent at the pleading state and could allow the in france that the twenty six dollars team protected activity was connected to the adverse actions is just the intervening protected activity and the fact also miss wright pled sufficient facts in her nd amended complaint to establish that her terminations and her removal of service were the result of retaliation protected activity under title step and when reviewed in totality the answer that question is no the complaint actually does not permit the inference is that are offered by miss king and miss murphy in the argument tonight and in fact the complaint when you review it tells a story of an employee who is does not understand the representation rights and provided to her as a union amber and is frustrated by the fact that she was terminated and also talks about the relationship between miss wright and her supervisor  your question about the timing of her calling the line and then returning to work on monday become plain alleges that when she returned to work on monday she was again given the opportunity to proceed through a coaching session and explain to you that there was no opportunity to have a union or is it representative present that so in fact the behavior was the same she was provided that opportunity again and when mr wright continued to say that she would not perce and she was warned that if that was her decision she would be removed from service for insubordination and that's exactly what i'm sorry to interrupt but i think that what it what about the allegations that are supervisor show that the question and didn't comply and so at that point essentially the ship had already sailed on that issue and she had been charged and was going to proceed with the here and for discipline but she said to be six stage and have to prove her did the district judge didn't rule out what you just said he was talking about you know you can't come in and make abstract assertions so what in the complaint is abstract he says just seems that you're urging with my otherwise be at a summary judgment kind of argument to say well you know what it is just twenty six so how much detail i guess that it's a question i mean how much detail or you asserting the plaintiff in his case would need to put in there just to stay in court yes your honor i agree with you this is a toby six save she does not have to prove her case by any means at this point in the medication however she does need to pretend not to actually support her claim here and the issue here is that her complaint is completely silent on whether any decision maker she doesn't have to say who it is or what exactly they knew but she does not mention i don't know that any decision maker was aware of this internal who claimed nor does the complaint contain any allegations regarding how that internal complaint may have changed the calculus she simply alleges that an internal complaint occurred and then goes back to the allegations regarding what happened with the request for representation the coaching session and her alternately being seized the honor pulled from service if you agree with both opposing counsel that the five cases that you cite are summary judgment cases yes your honor actually the majority of the cases cited by all parties in this in this case were for summary judgment cases that there's not much case thought out there that is much appreciate budget be you not abandon you have gone bad but it's always good to have candor thank you your honor you're not trying to defend dismissal if on the set it's very it's certainly not your fault but the paragraph is quite cryptic  g seems to imply she had to bring evidence and maybe even seems to credit your client's statement that may be proven true in the long run she refused coaching because she disputes that in the complaint so the district judge smile i was a little afield a claim and then the judge also articulate the appropriate standard about her being able to present enough facts that are closetful on the claim and so while why i understand what counsel's argument is on the sentence regarding evidence i don't think that's support the claim there are certain facts that must be alleged to support a claim that is brought into court and so my understanding about it would be that there has to be sufficient facts to make that claim possible for it to a stand a motion making here under the are away she is she's attempting to argue that because she was not afforded union representation for a coaching session that was retaliation the problem with that is that the  her with that right to coaching at union representation at a coaching session and there is no other law that provides her with that right if such a right exists it exists only in the collective bargaining agreement thus making a case that is dependent upon the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement that makes it to your honor's point a minor dispute under the r lay and it must proceed through arbitration which is what mr right is doing has with the claim that she's attempting to assert here is that she is attempting to assert a claim based on union representation for this coaching session and that is soley provided for if it all by the collective bargaining agreement employees so the development of a union and the selection of union representation it does not go to the specific right of a specific employee to have a union representative present at all issues there's no question here that m wright and her union brother and had selected union represent representatives and there is no question here that she was a member of a union that was collectively bargain on her behalf with the railroad the conclusion reached by the district court is also supported by the ender's case which is the us supreme court case which is analogous in that the issue there was whether the railroad was required to bring an employee back after he had separate injuries in a car accident similar to what the district court found here that was  question that was governed by the collective bargaining agreement thus making it a minor dispute also critical in that case is that he was attempting to reframe his claim in that case as wrongful discharged and that didn't change the essence of the here just mentioned in her argument is that she's claiming that not so much that she had this right to union representation but that she was right requesting union representation and that how it somehow which changes the claim it does  not the issue here is whether she was entitled to that union representation and that is based soley upon the collective bargaining agreement thus making this a minor to smear under the railway labor act and for those reasons the court properly dismissed the r lay the texas labor code does not have the right to union representation that miss wright is asserting here and it is also for the same reasons that the our way cannot proceed the texas labor nexus labor claim cannot proceed that is because it is preempted by the r lay the sections of the texas labor code that counsel cites to you st they allow all people to form unions again there is no question here that miss wright was a member of a union the only right conferred by the statute in that section is the right to organize into a union then perhaps it's interference with an individual's right to work and says that that individual cannot be denied the right to work because of lack of membership in the union or the decision to not be a member of the union but to proceed under that claim you have to be proceeding with a right that is provided by the texas labor code and there is no section in the texas labor covered cited by miss right or otherwise that provides her with the right to union representation at the coaching session which is at issue here so the claim is preempted both was both dismissed appropriately because it simply does not provide a of action for ms right and also because it is preempted by the railway labor act because again it relies upon the b interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and is thus subject to arbitration so we are