discrimination retaliation these cases include sullivan humphries jackson burlington and thompson i should know some very important matters that everybody agrees on here first dr shah does have a contractual employment relationship with russia university medical center second after shot has attempted to enforce a contract related rights in the case that we have just discussed and the present case is a section one thousand and eighty one third party retaliation claim held the presence or absence of a contractual relationship between the retaliator in the hotel even the retaliation victim is a factor in the courts must settle when they evaluate these kinds of claims that issue has already been rather directly decided by this court in  versus oliver in that case this court cited vietnamese fishermen's association versus knights of the klux klan and stated for the ku klux klan to beat up non whites to try to enforce who try to fight try to enforce a contract violate even murders of our recall correctly and we're dealing with legislation from the reconstruction era where the concerns of the ku klux klan operating to prevent freed slaves f exercising their rights if i understand this correctly your accusations against art parents are that he refused to continue doing prescription medications without an exam and that he declined to do continue academic research with you right now most of that's incorrect first of all the only person who ever got hurt in the vietnamese fishermen's association case was a white fisherman and that's what the hurt in that case nobody was physically heart they were scared and i should have been there were cross burnings hangs effigy that kind of was very threatening but they were friends but nobody got hurt except a white fisherman who was murdered ok justifiable self defense right refused to communicate with me in any way for an entire month about that and that was life threatening it cost me horrible pain i am still much more disabled because of what he did it's not to say you know yes i'll be for your prescription but you have to come it is an entire month when i repeatedly emailed him i emailed his assistance i know he got the email she told me that he did and he refused to provide them from us to communicating with anyway if you know that much he said oh well you have to come in and have it what he did his assistant that said you have to come in for an exam that's when that occurred so the complaint is not the demand for an exam the complaint concerns the fact that he threatened my life he calls me severe physical  to have to the employment contract was partly across to have to do with a contract what is pointing guns at them have to do with that what is hanging figures and none of that has anything directly to do with that but dr katz made it very clear to me that he disapproved of my complaining about anti jewish discrimination by rush made that very clear on multiple occasions and this actually was i think clearly in retaliation to that along with the other acts in the district court has a right and is inconsistent if you look at  take and such a limited construction would fail to fully chiva the anti retaliation provisions primary purpose namely maintaining unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms the same reasoning then it doesn't count so in other words if dr katz goes and you know most russian lies about me says they didn't come for work or something like that would count but if you withhold my medical care and almost kills me literally  this court stated that the result was compelled by the civil rights act of one thousand nine hundred one corresponding supreme court order and it was also the only sensible basalt because if you hold otherwise what you're saying is somebody you know sneak the issues presented by dr shots as you just heard them say doctor shot as just described have already been decided by the supreme court they've decided against it the district court here ruled that nine hundred eighty one is rooted in contract and that an action stripped of those roots cannot survive dr schatz complaint failed because she did not explicitly allege that dr katz took any action that directly and i say directly advise that directly cause material harm to dr shots ability to make and enforce her contract of employment the medical allegations alone and doctor shot attempt to leverage that into with the allegations within the four corners of the complaint twelve the six requires dismissal where the complaint fails to allege facts to state a claim that's plausible on its face supported by mere conclusory statements as this one is  and they contradict additional experience in other words common sense the complaint has to be looked at as a whole to see if the allegations tell the story that holds together no longer is notice pleading sufficient now shop did dr shah i beg your pardon did allege the conclusion by refusing to publish research articles with dr shot and refusing to do research with her dr katz has caused significant damage to ege however is inconsistent with the actions against cats where she gets specific she undermines yourself she alleges that russian employed after shot that rush discriminated against her because she was born jewish that rush discriminated against or even well before dr katz was in the picture well before dr shot filed rush and so you've filed shot the rush number one in ninety four she  retaliated against her for protesting and sowing as you heard in the courtroom today that retaliation began well before ninety four and continues to this date rush did not pay her rushed in a promoter again well before shot the rush number one was filed and she still works for rush this is not the sort of the sort of damage an impairment contemplated by nine hundred eighty one however she does also pl that dr katz and she have no contract whatsoever that they are colleagues that they are coworkers that russian president pressured dr katz into not publishing with her and that russia then did not pay her promoter fa not i am now i am very sure the court is aware of the catspaw principle and within that concept plaintiff has not pleaded that dr katz had the power to make any employment decisions which would be the direct interference or the indirect catspaw that dr katz caused an unknowing rush to take action against shot dr shot which would be the indirect or cats or method to the contrary alleges animus on the part of rush that yet chose to discriminate against her and that based upon that discrimination rush chose to pay and promote unfairly the district court fine tuned t issue did dr katz take any action that directly caused material harm to dr shots ability to make and enforce a contract of employment the court answered that no it paragraph twenty one of a complaint she does allege that rush put pressure on researchers and that this discrimination discrimination of paragraph twenty one virus has been damaging and paragraph and two as well even these suppose you had an employee suing an employer based on claims of race discrimination and some of the folks who are being accused of that wrongdoing decided to threaten or beat up the the  for race discrimination right he his accusations for example of a hostile environment include a lot of people who are coworkers their friends find out about the accusations and decide to take action to help out their friends by threatening or even beating up a point to try to discourage him from pursuing his lawsuit they simply tell him that's what we want you to do we want you to drop your lawsuit he refuses t under nine hundred eighty one i don't think so just when they point is the hast there has to be a causal connection between the actions and intent of the party discriminating and the retaliator the retaliator is acting right to sue that person but to attribute the actions of a stranger to the contract contractual relationship is not covered by nine hundred eighty one so let's put it this way suppose what's happening is an african american employee asserts a claim under title seven of the civil rights act case gets a lot of coverage the local chapter of the ku klux klan gets wind of it and decides teach him a lesson that he shouldn't be bringing that kind of a plea threatens and him isn't that actionable under section eight hundred eighty one only against the klan or yes that's what i'm talking about if that's the vietnamese fishermen exactly if their action is intended to impair the contractual relationship  does or it has a potential to do so and mike my concern is that this is simply is an area where we need to be very careful and so that we do not undermine the effectiveness of to address your question are much i think was an excellent one early to the thompson talk about material retaliation and that is the crux of the matter that is retaliation that well this way a reasonable person from asserting his contract related about what you're saying it says if that makes all section one thousand new one claims impossible to win because if the person discouraged from filing the claim that is it right there but if they persevered anyway then obviously they want to skirt so they have