on two bases the first is the district court found that she pled only and interference claimed she specifically pled interference claiming that her complaint even construed as generously as possible didn't compass a retaliation claim under a stricter standard at the motion for general motion for summary judgment stage of litigation and that the why song vs dow come chemical companies rule about notice pleading with regard to my claims isn't applicable at the summary judgment stage and that a plaintiffs who provides general allegations of violations under the family medical leave act allegations that encompass both a retaliation and interference theory because the two somewhat overlap that is enough that is sufficient to put the defendant on fair notice that they would be seeking to move under either the interference they were or the retaliation where is the the retaliation theory i'm i'm looking the paragraphs thirty two and thirty three which i would think are the relevant paragraphs so there are other per graphs that are relevant factual allegations paragraphs twenty one and twenty five set the stage that she informed speedway that she was going to be taking leave and that they forced her against her will and she objected to taking family but yes your honor paragraph thirty two and thirty three are the essentials for the retaliation claim and paragraph thirty three specifically specifies that she was terminated for opposing what she believed was an unlawful practice on speedways part under the family medical leave act that being well the refusal to take leave isn't that i don't didn't quite understand the last part that  what what what is that that's the protected act her refusal to take leave her opposition to speedways attempt to force her to take involuntary leave opposing what she reasonably believes is an unlawful act that being that would seem to make this claim derivative of you or your ference claim i e if in fact speedway was entitled under the statute to ask her to demand that she take leave that they're they're following through on that they're they're making that demand can't be retaliation with once you're very close here and yes the zero be it is a protected activity for an employer or for an employee to oppose a practice that they reasonably believe to be unlawful the very few courts who have but that really made would make every ordinary dispute a retaliation claim that is employer says i'm going to do this employee says you shouldn't do that the employer goes ahead and does it then it must be retaliation for opposing it and that that can't be the law when you go to the substance of whether the first dispute is right for the case we just heard how can it hard going to be retaliation to do exactly the thing that you said you're going to do while you're on it that would be where this would come up in the mcdonnell douglas framework is yes it might be you could say in every case would satisfy the crime aphasia case of the protected activity would be one element of that the first stage of the crime fish case is not onerous it's a burden easily met in those cases that would seem you know farcical to be retaliation would probably be knocked out at the pretext stage because the employer would come up with a legitimate reason for what they did that was grounded both in fact and law and the employer wouldn't be able to show pretax so if we were to not saying we will but if we were to rule in your adversary's favor on the first point wouldn't that be up so facto non pretextual in the know your honor because the getting through the prime fish stage of the retaliation claim i want to protect activity she was terminated she was terminated within a month protected activity so the bird in them would shift to speedway but that's where the problems begin this wasn't decided by the district court the dish court never went into the substance of miss hawkins retaliation claim speedway even though this has been asserted full mcdonnell douglas analysis and in her opening brief speedway didn't respond to that so we can only guess as to what their legitimate business reason would be it's assumed based on what they've said to date that it would be that she didn't return the leave paperwork in a timely manner as required under the policy and then as pretext for that miss huffman asserted that under both the family policy and the personal leave of absence absence a policy speedway has none of them discuss involuntary leave speedway does not have the right under its own policy to force an employee to take involuntary leave well i mean the alternative is worse i mean if you can't do the job they could say well i'm sorry we're going to let you go but the f m l a doesn't somebody do that or the employer do that when they have an incapacity like this and they said make the employer give leave which is what they tried to do that is through your own the problem with their policy is once again it's silent on the involuntary leaving but specifically going to their legitimate business reason that this hoffman didn't return the paperwork in a timely manner there is no procedures set out or responsibility set out for when an employee is forced to take leave against their will and which they don't believe they're suffering from serious health condition will do they still have to turn in their paperwork in a timely manner do they start still have to certify it even if they disagree with it and because that is nonexistent in the policies that they're insufficient in fact and would not be enough to justify speedways decision on that basis it would be a legitimate  retaliation claim to survive summary judgment to quickly tie it in to limit the time on the issues to whether she properly pled a retaliation claim both y song in a subsequent opinion in morse versus family dollar affirmed that plant only has to give reasonable notice to the defendant of which claims could be asserted in their judge box hit on the the essence of the media claim and what's really important is to distinguish what the report relied on in the hof here case inhofe here the district court held this this court held that the plaintiff only pled a retaliation claim didn't have an interference claim and specifically looked at three facts from the engaging in a protected right and third the injuries were related to the defendant's retaliation very very specific claims only tied to retaliation miss hofmann like my song and morris have she pled to general violations as the title of her of her claim although not dispositive and as judge box pointed out there is a claim for retaliation in other claims and therefore her involuntary leave where do they say that i don't i mean  you know i mean in paragraph thirty three you say defendant violated plaintiff's rights under the act very very gentle ok so maybe it encompasses both but then you look at thirty two s whiff of retaliation and here i magine this was complete news to the district court when it was told and what about our retaliation claim i mean i've read complaints with retaliation claims i mean this is  and for any other i have two minutes for a bottle if you need it thank you thank you very much  mean i believe it would serve me well to keep my comments here very brief and i'll do that by starting with this the best evidence that there was not a retaliation claim before the district court is the fact that  plaintiff never made that argument until four months after the court had granted summary judgment on the interference and pregnancy discrimination claim which then required the plaintiff to file the  is subject to this appeal here today hersh remain in motion i agree with your reading judge couple of the complaint that there is nothing in there that suggests anything other than an connection between the protected activity and the terminations the complaint or the amended complaint is devoid of any such allegations and so the district court was correct in ruling only on the interference claim because that's the only claim that was before the court and the district court was correct in denying the her motion for remey and for that same recent have you ever seen the successful appeal of a lot i've never seen an appeal from one year let alone a success you will be in that is one argument we made is that if you look at the cases there for instance is for example where the transcript from the lower court has somehow disappeared in there some some procedural issue unrelated to what claims were before the district court one last point and i think it i think it's dispositive as well as the argument we made in our brief that the motion is untimely because it had to be made within the period of time for the appeal if what you're going to argue is they have to district court made a legal stake which is what they're asserting here thank you counsel that in any need for rebuttal sir