issue regarding the district court's granting a summary judgment i'm going to focus on the retaliating claim that there's going to be some considerable overlap into a disparate treatment claim given  that it focuses on the reasons this city has given for his terminations we felt we believe the court committed error in two ways st in just making the determination summary judgment was appropriate the court impermissibly made a credibility determination finding that the city acted had a good faith belief that mr garcia had been insubordinate regarding some incidents that i'll get to moment and that because of that good faith belief there could not have been discrimination as the court is well aware most of summary judgment it is in essence just a little over three ways the the incidence according to the city and examined by the court there were three we referred to as the packet incident facade because the city puts all of its policies online employees go online and read it and click acknowledging that they may have read secondly the packet didn't have any explanation as to what it was for they had no place for more time but in the issue of insubordination let's say for the sake of our narrative it wasn't subordination they went immediately they proposed discipline was indefinite suspension which is just code so you have a twenty plus year firefighter that is being is being recommended for terminations over a back and forth on a package which by the department's motive and whether in fact they were attempting to provoke him into a response that they could later use as a justification for terminus gas after he returned to work requires firemen to check their email or a device he was unable to check his email from home so he goes to the station finds the officer on duty aspiration to go and check is in there or in fact when checked his e mail and another deputy chief sees a scar mr garcia's car about being in the station they argument was whether or not he was ever instructed to go in the station or not and there was an argument that way mr garcia was ordered to leave an straw this was the reason why he was fired the fact is she there and the problem with with that argument is that the terminations paperwork was prepared the day before the meeting and that's in the record so it's more than reasonable that the meeting was to tell him that he was fired and there's also a pact issue as to why he missed the meeting those who are see testimony is that he told me he had to show up anyway he just and so with those three s events we believe that they there is more than sufficient evidence at least for a fact considered to have been accepted by the t v say d the contents met the requirements of the state statute although there d were there were some things lacking but the court only focus the court focused on what d mr garcia actually wrote and the statement that he attached but he didn't look at the contents of the now state law has the state statute has a relation back doctrine that would allow for not only the correction of technical errors and misses but also the amplify and add additional not act when they do not follow up they do not investigate they do not contact the complaining party or their turn in these you know to flesh things out so the relation the last story being about the relation back on further extent see research as we were working on this there's something many things in the legal side that mr twinging inadvertently appears to four and it specifically states there's no immunity for public employers of which we are where where there is any prerequisites to a lawsuit and including noticed and in was attempt to relate backs similar to what's in this case the supreme court said that the section three hundred and eleven thirty four does not permit relating back therefore all the argument and all  documentation and all the claims that were tried to be related back in this case cannot be and the judge ruled that in his opinion early on and he he he is spot on that what that means is that mr garcia cannot resurrect a client because they're on timely and then there are joe's rules and rightly so that the e e o c charge was untimely because it was not filed until june of two thousand and eighteen so that it could not relate back to all of the things that were attempted to relate back in the earlier charge  the idea of not relating back because it's on time lease and the other saying that there that i know the one of the mention is that in all the documents that were attached there in the the intake questionnaire that's a really important point for the court in our opinion to tackle because they're trying to get all the suspects in through the intake questionnaire and that's when one of the documents that show that we  out did not at all mention that he had his firing was due to his disability he made it that he had every other category but not disability so since number one it doesn't relate back and number two he didn't indicate disability at all that's those are the two of the reasons that the court ruled against him dismissed the case the other part that is troubling i judge found that the other that the actual occurrences here were not correct in a series and he concluded and he didn't have to go to the rest of the opinion but he concluded that it was uncommonly based on what i've just discussed with is the to but it's very clear that in two thousand and thirteen united states supreme court change the factor when you're looking at whether there's retaliation from the motivating factor to a but factor this was followed up by the texas supreme court and twenty eight team in a case called alamo heights and the texas supreme court followed along with the nasser case and that and then followed every since in fact t so the grievances that that if were of were challenged in the in the documents that we've been discussing were not related to a protected category and his dog his grievances were about poker playing and he didn't like his captain and the district court also correctly notice that that it had nothing to do with age it had nothing to do with disability and in fact the other thing that the court start really at april th and i'd like to take you through that and i can tell by your questions that you familiar with the facts and that is that mr garcia was absent from the city for most much of that time recuperating from his his injury to his ear in san antonio at his request because he had been told and it's probably true that some of the best your doctors are in san antonio and so he was he was number one permitted to do that that doesn't seem retaliatory to to me or to the city and the nd thing that compounded jumping around but it relates more in time was a claim that his grievance  resolved and you probably read about that and all that very thing it was very difficult to loke to have got hold of him while he was on leave and most most of that time in san antonio so it's not surprising that the grievance  that we filed a motion to admit to the record because we exceeded the number of pages and one of them and i would leave for admission was a copy of a receipt an invoice from hearing company in san antonio that showed the price of the hearing aids that he was supplied with that were at the city six stamps so going on and going on into full pay and he was f release to come to work and he was to come to work and at st he was had a limited duty and that's when the city asked him he'd been gone for months the city was updating all the fire department policy  and realizing that the fire department is a paramilitary organization i think that's really important in understanding insubordination that occurred at a later period of time so he was when he received the  when he received the approval from his physician he reported to work he was put on the o j type of he didn't have to go to the station yet because the department wanted himself with that argument and that's where all heck broke loose from that and there are i'm trying not to create fact issues i think mr twentyman in his presentation was creating trying to create some back to issues of reading of the documents in the in the briefs that we've submitted would indicate there was not any kind of problem there one of the things that he will note i'm going to back up here was this a letter twinging that was september st i recall bad in may have heard this term before a defensive shield for whatever reason his client must've felt that he was going to be in trouble for something so that this letter was a letter to the city attorney said you know a terrible thing to happen to my client and that related to the the whistle in the air the horn honking his ear so it didn't really relate to anything other than that which the trial dreads is really a part of this anyway but moving on what happened is have points is that the city you know he has this letter which seems like a protective shield and i think it was important of doug to resolve that he was asked to sign for a path that they had program you may have heard of before call lexy poll where they could access them on computer now and i model so mention about computers employees in a fire department didn't have an order that they were to review emails but it was when they were at work firefighters as you may know work only every rd day so  told his explanation did not suggest he was told don't check your email just don't come to work to the fire station and we had a misunderstanding maybe or whatever the explanation may be as you witnesses say he was told not to come in at all so there's at least a disagreement there why do set not matter in here now actually is two different things that needs pointing the order not to go to any station was because after the meeting with the that was top management that meeting with top management had with him walking out and slamming the door behind him and refusing to do anything that was when he was slammed the door open now i don't believe there's any just agreement but there was one more thing that he was told that mr twentyman didn't mention to you before he left in a sauna it's on tape that was part of the evidence because he was secretly ta recording the other of the officers the house tours is he was told and we're just putting you back on o j i hear you take the packet and you go talk to your lawyer about it so if they were trying to retaliate against but not  even put him back on o j i they would have probably put him on leave without pay in which they could do and they would have said here you take the pack and let your lawyer look at it we'll put you back on leave and after he looks at it then everything is good and i think you all also heard the reason for wanting to pack it was that the prior one of you mentioned at the prior incident was another employee worry that he hadn't signed so everyone there was trying to help him out they had him assigned to a new station they had his training worked out and everything was going well until he we use that term boda about having to sign that he received the packet and i don't think that creates a fact issue that that would require any type of trial about it because he clearly he clearly understood what he was asked to do and he had no reason that was a incident of the insubordination and one of the other things that mr twain didn't mention is that mister garcia had a history of counseling is about not getting along with people it's kind of goes to the question of retaliation did did he just dream this sir he had a history of and had been moved around in a lot of stations and one thing i would like to mention as i'm getting station i'd like to turn it from a to the honest belief and i course the city agreed with the courts of the trial court's honest belief because because of the the factual history  you there is absolutely no discrimination and that the fire chief had an honest belief that all of these occurred he he was present to and the one that occurred station five the chief was on the phone with mr ground the chief was involved with two the three issues here that constituted and subordination he was not at the st meeting but he was involved and on the phone with mr garcia the nd one and then the rd issue was mr under texas law the forest fire chief can terminator discipline and employ they must be given notice under chapter six thousand one hundred and forty point one of the take government coat this requires a written notice and it can be given before him and he didn't come to the meeting now whether he anticipated the firing was going to happen and just decided he was going to come i have no way of reading his money myself but when they called him he said he was going to come in  would come in and and then he failed to come in and the chief budet is the rd incident of insubordination the city agrees with the trial court in that respect that you would agree that that there has to be obedience to orders and what it would be like the order or not you're supposed to take action as a pleasure orders regardless of whether you agree with it or not unless it's dangerous recommendation went forward for in effect a foreign so got a twenty three year and pauline and he refused to sign a packet for example and trying to allay other to bass about suspicion of the incident that occurred at the fire scene it back in april with the firefighter rim eeriest and the treatment that he gave him and he had many run ins before and he did have twenty three years i'll grant you that but i think that when you're looking at insubordination all of the decisions and i handle a lot of decisions related determinations in the fire and police services that insubordination in untruthfulness by all arbitrators that we deal with and judges usually that those two or the cap are quote unquote capital punishment and and even one instance of insubordination can become a valid termination from employment because it's seen as so serious for that reason that the idea of progressive discipline was not going to work here the chief had decided that based on the issues that had arisen with mr garcia that that he was not interested in changing his behavior and following orders he wondered run the his own apartment by himself and not be bound by following anyone else's orders thank you very determines that's a credibility way and he has to get into the minds in motive someone to make that determination and it also involves playing the evidence and him by doing that  he did not adequately address the pretext issues and he did not examine the pretexts issue in the context of whether a fact issue i a reasonable that he was allowed to take it and go get it looked at that was after there were some back and forth but that nice the same in the context of the official report that said that he refused to take the packet when in fact that was not the case so we have a contradiction in the position and that and the documents and again part of  the matters resolved we did not threaten you know say other then we will we have an intention of file but we want to work it out and that was that was the discussion between the city and up to the point he came back on trouble you know one thing that needs to be pointed out st of all i don't know what paramilitary mates i mean that sounds good it's paramilitary but my client was a marine  ordination is he understands full well with following orders are so you know we're not talking about matters like this say while they're responding to an emergency they's fighting a fire or acting as an e m t i mean this is this is purely administrative and under counsel's argument if one of his deputies came in and told him to go stand in a corner and he refused that would be insubordination now that got good performance evaluations and literally within a few weeks of returning back after retaining attorney and trying to assert your rights you're terminated and lastly d with respect to was not it was not the bar see if he had been threatened with a ras by a deputy chief that had confronted him publicly at the station so at the end of the day you know there's a dispute about that i mean the more we look at it these are material facts what was the motive was it proportional to what was going on and was