would say the preventable child my client's only crime in this entire ordeal was the fact that she logged in her notes what was going on with this child she loved the fact that the child who was a diabetic was having trouble for example being singled out for a good book committee meeting they wanted to do some sort of story which of sever to the point she went to talk to the school nurse my client my client started that in her notes march of two thousand and eleven in a girl was being bullied bullying consisting of postings on the internet that she would be better off dead after first suicide attempt in february of two thousand and eleven comments fire from a student because she's a diabetic eventually she'll lose her legs and be of no use to society my clients crime longing that in her notes reporting it to school administrators so as we fast forward on may twentieth two thousand and eleven this child killed herself after this child killed herself understandably her parents filed suit which is in the record at some point in time a subpoena duces tecum coupled with the subpoena for production which is a subpoena willing to talk and all this kind of business and she says to my client are there any red flags my clients as well absolutely there are here are the two occasions where i logged in and i had talked to ms barker at your office about the child being non compliant there was also an issue logged in our notes which she went to misuse was secretary reported about the fact that the child was being denied the ability to check her blood glucose in the class by a substitute teacher yes i logged in the fact i'd talk to pat faulting and march or april of two thousand and eleven at which time his funding had reported that she also was aware bullying which she had reported to ministration and yes in april before this child's death i noted that she was noncompliant i called mom and  reported it to your sister and principal becky gray what happened on summary judgment in my opinion was the judge can find himself only two what's contained in the notes which are found in the record i believe it ten sixty sixty seven sixty eight he overlooked what my client said which is what caused this entire ordeal as my client testified toward the end of that meeting taking place in  two thousand and twelve with the principal principal became distant cold to speak to that's how the meeting ended after that the situation in my client's workplace disintegrated tremendously one of the things the district court talked about was we don't have you know a complete unbroken chain we don't because schools don't are not in session from may until august so when you look at the timeline of events when my client returned to school in august of two thousand and twelve all hell broke loose after the initial meeting the production of her notes and the identification of the red flags are protected speech when she returned to school and august of two thousand and twelve she saw the principal the same principal standing in the hallway mocking her to her secretary making fun of my client she was reprimanded on august twenty second two thousand and twelve by her supervisor ginger hug longer an asset and your nurse's notes of created a liability for the school system in addition significantly hughes told her she was being reprimanded because she used the words bullying and harassment and she had given them quote no wiggle room in two thousand record two thousand you'd also told my client that she was able to downgrade the punishment that i wanted to impose upon my client downgrade her words to only a verbal reprimand because the principal originally wanted an involuntary transfer and a written reprimand those were her words i'm downgrading your punishment yet in granting summary judgment the district court concluded two things number one it co number one number two the court said well when she ultimately was in voluntarily transferred that did not constitute an adverse employment action so therefore for the purposes of the one thousand nine hundred three first and then retaliation and as what meir i can gather from the one paragraph granting summary judgment on the state reprisal claimed the involuntary transfer didn't cause a loss in pay so therefore it is not an adverse action it's not actionable that's not the law it w supreme court make clear when we're looking at retaliation claims and even this court has and several of its companions even in twenty fifteen or twenty sixteen recently the law is whether or not the action taken against the employer would likely di e another person from aborting and that's the law it's not it's not triggering upon whether or not you lost the pay it's the effect on the other employees why because the purpose of protecting whistleblowers is so that we don't have a society that's silenced because they're afraid and unprotected in the twenty three nine sixty seven claims when we look at the text of twenty three nine six and which court does repeatedly when you're talking about for example title seven retaliation claims the because of language as opposed to the created by train yes or yes sir and you that's an adverse employment i absolutely give very simply several reasons number one my client's children attended high school so being at that high school environment was a appropriate for a family member one number two because transferring she got transferred over to an environment which she describes for example then having a toddler cut off tied bucket with a needle was outside her what i would loosely refer to as her she described the office space she also described the fact that she no longer had her responsibilities with the high school students with him she had developed a relationship the entirety of her employment and one point i transferred to another school a middle school yes  twenty three nine hundred sixty seven there is no adverse employment requirement in fact if you look at some parts and a twenty three nine hundred seventy it says any action taken in reprisal which includes firing demotion or any other act the vs burlington northern because a burlington northern says is we know we use this phrase adverse employment action repeatedly when more evaluating retaliation claims we know we do it but the real trigger is not the loss and pray the real trigger is whether or not it likely dissuade some other worker from coming forward so that's why i used the phrase and what was critical and white when you look at the facts of why is that was originally a suspension i think without pay like for forty five days and then the employer came back and said we're just kidding here's your money back there's no loss of play that's how it factually presented itself to the supreme court in this particular circumstance as i submitted in my brief there's two different standards twenty three nine sixty seven the state reprisal statute which is wide open as this court has sat specifically in footnote for schroeder it's much broader than any other written retaliation statute in that case it had to do with the credit union anti retaliation act you contend that there was discrimination discriminatory action yes taken as an adult and action by employee and as a parts one of twenty three nine sixty seven was reporting opposing and threatened to expose essentially an action in violation of law which was the denial to the student of her ability to disclose practice or was in violation of the law yes sir was i that was the discussion she had initially in may of two thousand and eleven i'm sorry march of two thousand and twelve with the principal where she said here are my notes are there red flags yes there are here's what i've noted and these are the problems the problems are to deny this little girl the ability to test her good clue coast in class in april of two thousand and eleven a of the equal provision of an education a free an appropriate public education number two her rights as a disabled student because she does qualify as a disabled student number three hundred x five hundred four which is part of the rehabilitation act she's entitled to have a dations for disability and school environment including the ability to check her glucose in a classroom number for her right to be free from bullying and harassment in that school environment and her right to be protected as a student in the school environment and in response to the subpoena that's how the she did actually disclosed in response to the subpoena which was part of the litigation that's why her supervisor told her she was being transferred that's why her supervisor told her i'm giving you a reprimand because you exposed our inadequacies you exposed just to liability on the lawsuit by the suicide child's parents that we're this particular circumstance the other thing is in response to your question when she was transferred the involuntary transfer occurred on january twenty ninth two thousand and thirteen at the same time she was like was reprimanded so the transfer was in fact imposed as a disciplinary measure against her again and i think the biggest problem is the fact that we're dealing with two separate claims first amendment retaliation and reprisal which are judged by different standards the first amendment retaliating claim the court dismissed alleging garside a board its application because she kept her notes up as part of her job as a nurse so therefore under garside it's not protected we're going to grant qualified immunity and this particular circumstance we submit our study does not borrow because it is the speech in presenting the notes and the knowledge she possessed which she disclosed to her supervisor who then immediately sprang into action changed the meeting with her direct supervisor ms huge she said you're no longer an asset why am i no longer an asset because you expose their inadequacies in your notes you have opened us up to liability for the death of this girl accommodations he said that that was something that was not brought or teach it a couple of the incidents or the quote unquote rid of flags that were mentioned in more to two thousand and eleven shortly before the child's day of the yearbook incident that was referred to basically the yearbook editor in the riders were going to do articles about students that attended parkway that overcome  and someone another student i presume or possibly a teacher approached the student about an article about her overcoming her situation of the student spread some reluctance to do that march two thousand and twelve meeting when the records were subpoenaed nurse reivers contingent is that there was a change in dr bush was demeanor meeting where the administration supposedly torridon nurse right now this this whole situation is really about two incidents one that happened in august of two thousand and twelve where there was a that there was an inappropriate confrontation between these two employees in front of students and parents and after this confrontation took place in the office  are students and this is the this is the open area where they come and go and students come in the mornings and parents come in the office is not dr bush was office is just a common area  issues and one thing that came up was the institution of a nine one one program where if a student would have an issue or if there was an emergency on campus  if we're calling her personal cell phone which she was not actually situated her office who they would need or they would call her cell phone and she complained about them calling her personal cell phone so there was bush was said look we're going to institute a policy because you're not always here we don't know where you might be located in emergencies we're not and once they were going to call now war that's going to be our practices in our policy and so that took place in late august now there aren't any other recorded incidents or problems or anything that reflected the record between august of two thousand and twelve that january of two thousand and thirteen then january two thousand and thirteen there's an incident that and the testimony was that she was upset and she stormed out of was office and said this is fantastic or words to that effect in front of other staff and  in the end of january two thousand and thirteen she was transferred from a to an elementary and middle school which were in fairly close proximity to power council mention the fact that her two dollars were students are that's true but you have staff follow the parish you can't demand to work at a school where your children work that's wonderful if you can but that doesn't always work out that way that was basically there were no huge issues at that point she finished the school year and then she went on to she got a job at one of the hospital case she was not speaking as a citizen only a matter of public concern in her nurse's notes that was something she did in the course and scope of her employment it was not something done outside of registered nurse my client with asked the question and did dr bruce why in the course that meeting tell everyone that we're going to exclude lord robert for medical emergencies she said whether it is on campus or not they were to call nine one one i that starts at record two thousand and eleven a male student collapsed in the cafeteria in my client was there and all these people the two assistant principals had just talked to her and they don't know a fire of any kind of medical emergency they instead call nine one one and wait till those folks get there with the collapse student in the middle of the cafeteria i'm like how council recites the testimony what my client said was she the only way she found out about it is some paraprofessional came to her office after it was over this is a record two thousand and eleven and told her there had been a medical emergency my client goes to the cafeteria she runs into assistant principal who runs a banker and says what's going on don't worry about it we got it we called nine one one you not to because you asked about adverse employment action judges and i wanted to refer to one of my cases actually and this was the case which pay but what was happening is they were systematically restricting and removing from or her job responsibilities same situation here in the here case this court concluded correctly under why the standard is whether or not it likely dissuades another worker and here this court concluded for title seven retaliation claim that the actions imposed upon his hair were sufficient to trigger anti retaliation protection they did not and here involve a transfer as is here the other thing your honor when you asked about the transferred south she's getting the same pay it's just another school that's not how administration saw it what you heard was council's recitation of miss hughes in her deposition she said i was being reprimanded because i use the ball towards such as bullying and harassment and she said that because i use those direct terms that i didn't give them any wiggle room she goes on to say that the reason he keeps it's impossible to stay in a situation where we have a supervisor acknowledging direct evidence of retaliatory animists that because the school says it hangs so in summary judgment should be granted the whole purpose of summary judgment essentially is to take out credibility calls and no weighing of evidence whatsoever in our record of the nurses notes as i pointed out earlier they are not as portrayed those are found at record twenty seventy six client and said can you make this stuff this is all this poor child's universe after her first suicide attempt in february of two thousand and eleven so it's all known in addition to that your honour's it didn't stop there as it relates to the child and the reason my client was reprimanded reprimanded poor evaluation essentially affecting her promotional opportunities and transferred to her undesirable reassignment is for the simple fact that she told them exposed their quote and adequacy is and told them that they were responsible and they knew it the only difference is she documented it happens all too often in this line of work where you have he said she said focus on their jobs or their livelihoods to an employer i client was wise enough to document what was going on with this woman where did she document in her nurse's notice or in addition she filed to grievances requesting for a name clearing hearing in addition to that she kept an accurate log of what was going on in terms of the harassment which is likewise in the record they had no hearing grievances were rejected and never addressed that's the arabia case which unfortunately lost in this court for the same reason but she darn sure in this case asked her thank you thank you