we are your honors we are here today because we are asking this panel to reverse the findings of the district court dismissing this vcs claim in total the main three were i will dispense with the restoration of the that the steps and the of the process that she had to endure here after she reported discrimination were clearly discriminatory misleading simi had been working there for four years pretty much without issue in this particular year in which she was terminated she had a number of issues with her supervisor mr white she had already reported her for discrimination earlier in the year we had  american airlines are on board it's unclear in terms of the american airlines does most of the each art work but they counsel her with respect to the interview process that miss the sister had undergone because they basically missed white decided not to hire her because she was related to miss you see that's what was the she had claimed she also claimed that she had not been able to partake in opportunities to advance and that she and other african american employees also had  issues there again they had counseled miss white with respect to all of these issues this is earlier in the spring time of the same senior of the seams to her and so then when all these things happened with respect to the comments that were made by her call her colleague mr massenburg he was fired and the district court seemed to focus on that as if that were the remedy for everything that occurred in this case and unfortunately as be i v s are which was the illinois department of human rights when they interviewed several of the employees they all indicated that the work environment became more hostile after mr massenburg was fired ma employees and that she wanted him stay but she had no problem with miss d c being terminated and that's because she had already had issues with miss d c for reporting her in the past now there are a number of things that miss white was supposed to do in terms of after these comments were made after mr massey fired there were a number of things that miss white was supposed to do to make certain that the environment was welcoming and again american airlines like the plague the mistake that is this is what evidence do you argue in your brief you made the same argument in your brief that you're making now and that is that i think in your brief he said the environment deteriorated substantially at your client's expense after eric massa garb was terminated and what if what evidence in the record you specifically have in mind and how does it connect with miss race well there is two there's well let me just be clear because the claim we had sought to amend the complaint to include a race claim this particular claim that we are appealing was based upon th retaliation not necessarily because of her race but because she had because she reportedly raised by a leash and because she's reported mr massey garbs entirely inappropriate comments correct yes and so therefore while she had she does have claims with respect to the race those were not we were not able to bring those because the court would not allow us to amend the complaint so regardless of her race it was the fact of her bringing up these comments that are as the basis of our retaliation click ok but doesn't the difficulty that she runs into arise from what the company found to be violations of it's where they called the travel policy find affirmatively that she violated the travel policy well there's a couple of issues with with that and i will go back to cited the soldier versus wal mart case because i think what happened here is the same thing that the court instructs there it's the sabera t of the punishment the court talked about this strike this is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer so if you want to go through all of the things that they claim that she did it started and the issue is that it started because of this you know alleged anonymous complaints that this lights hit or coerced into another supervisor to do so when he wasn't even there we didn't see anything that might have happened and had to do with what misty she's intent was to your response to the company's motion for summary judgment in paragraph fifty two the company set forth in paragraphs eight through v as in victor all of the facts that it believed based upon the findings that valerie duran made why a travel policy violation occurred and the only thing that your client said in response to that collection alleges that this paragraph contains both disputed material and immaterial facts but isn't it your obligation or your client's obligation at that stage of the litigation to affirmatively come forth with evidence creating a trial issue he did your honor and that and i think part of the issue is the weight in which that district sets up the way that you have to respond to the fact that you have to respond in such a way that i think it's not clear in terms of how you have them how it's laid out but in terms of our briefing we absolutely did respond that was in one of the two little one for the response which was a one of two to one of four which is not the page numbers from the lower court but that appendix numbers that we talked about the different issues that miss the sea had there and part of the problem with it is we indicated in our briefing part of the issue with the investigation is that none of those things actually violate the travel policy when we went through i think in the reply just to go through all the things that were in the record below that the court had to consider and we went through each of the trips that they indicate so the st issue is that when this p c was actually terminated they didn't tell her all of these things there was not all of you did this you did that they indicated that she had violated the policy but not now so when we went through all of the scripts all of the things that they claimed and the issue again is does that rise to the level of something that you would be terminated for again that sledgehammer i don't see and going through each of those trips the st one was that they said that's the q sort of traveling out of sequence and so just to say just to go through to answer your question with respect to our our response they are they don't necessarily flesh out all of the details but we did flesh out the details perspect the record in terms of what were what our response was to each of those allegations i thought so what i'm saying i took the position among other things that if you buy a so called revenue ticket i think i think that just means if you purchase a ticket like an ordinary customer would be but as an employee you put yourself on the standby list at the same exact time and and then you know later drop your revenue ticket in exchange for some kind of coupon or refund or  credit or something going forward that that violates the travel policy and as i read her deposition that's she admitted to doing that with with respect to the flight that was going to or from dallas or laguardia right but the issue there was that there was i don't believe it was possible for them actually to do what they were saying in terms of it being in violation of the policy i think i understand what they're stating the policy is that i don't believe that that was actually a policy that's not how is the easy answer to the policy or does she think that that was an actual violation of any trouble policy i think the problem is that they clearly went back through here this he had already complained to be i v h r at the time that they came they sent two in two individuals all the way from dallas to come and question her in person none of this happened when they were investigating any of the other allegations with respect to mr massacre we did everything by phone but they sent these two individuals to come and intimidate her and ask for two hours worth of questions about everything that she had ever done and the issue is that mr murray had done it admitted to doing things this way the things they said initially they said well she was signing terminal offenses what is the loss to american airlines if she is holding is just that if she was holding a standby reservation and she booked a ticket or if it happened how much time passed between the legs and even any money but justified as a matter of you know enforcing the now rule workplace rules but it's a question of whether it was retaliatory we need a causal link between  in particular a retaliation or writing about discrimination claim so you're saying that they don't argue that they were unjustified in firing her because it it was  an overreaction to what she did isn't the point the point is whether that was the real reason or whether the real reason was retaliation right and i think with respect to the retaliation it's the ti these nothing happened to her the entire time she was there again she's when she's testifying she's talking about things that occurred that she was doing the whole time other people did other people didn't get into trouble for it even after apparently  about it at least three fourths of the litigation and still nothing was done to them and so at this point it becomes that's the reality is that you all of a sudden all these things are heightened then you of the things you want in there  say that the reason that she was fired is because she took about sure that she never used i mean the fact i'm the fact that they're saying that these things rice a local termination when one person who did do something so there was mr watkin that her that her client was on probation right well they said that but that's what she did i meet and court and she filled out her the i v s are questionnaire and it asked she was up she had no idea that they were holding this over this is something she complained about this situation within a few weeks miss white is coercing an employee to report her for purely travel not traveling because she had a purse and somehow or some i'm supposed to know her intent and then that was the initial reason and then they went in and investigated and they said that maybe not that but these other things such as things that don't didn't cost american life any money at all we're going to spend you know a full they are the people to fly from dallas to investigate her and it's the the fact that miss white did have a discriminatory animus and the timing of it together that should be enough to get her past summary judgment all right thank you very much that the main question is whether or not the jury looking at this evidence that miss d c has presented would say that after she reported these issues this is comments that were made was the door basically closed on her with respect to her employment was she ushered out the door and i think that she has at least presented a question of fact that's the weather that occurred the to state that they're all because the link was