so good afternoon and may it please the court my name is rebecca saliva and i represent the plaintiff appellant than us roberts and the district court in this case erred in granting summary judgment when it found that mr robertson was not retaliated against for reporting the abusive conduct of her prior director ed cameron and by st being harassed incessantly by his predecessor by the person who came after him and also when she was not awarded the position of director when she was clearly significantly more qualified and when the decision makers used primarily subjective decision making in making that decision  against her during that no there isn't and i know that the defendant and the district court have sided with shrink lee we don't believe that that's terribly relevant their reality is is that the retaliation was not wanting a person who had made these complaints in the position of director that we believe that a jury could find under these circumstances that while it was ok to have her stay in her position that having somebody who had made these complaints and had force the resignation of a popular director at least as far as medicine is concerned they didn't want her in that position and with respect to miss evans certainly there was no way she could have done any retaliation prior to november because she wasn't even there  so so i think the timing particularly when it comes to miss evans you know is that she did the retaliation at the very st opportunity similarily the department made its retaliation in its st opportunity that it wanted to in ensuring that somebody who had made that complaint was not placed in that  the district court would have you believe i believe that a jury could find the fact that she was prevented and kept from working with her directly for it in a number of different ways st by having the joint meetings reduced telling her not to communicate with them and then when she even tried having one on one meetings with a director evidence would come in and make it so that these meetings became so uncomfortable that they they stopped having them and so  y other ways in which there was a material adverse harassment going on was with these community meetings and these are and again as this court and the supreme court of have repeatedly said in these things that context matters and these were not and i believe a jury could find that these were not just average meetings or but these were really very significant meetings these were meetings that were set up as a result of a class action lawsuit and were there specifically designed to ensure the proper running by community participants of the of miles and so it was a critical part of miss robertson's job a critical way in which she was able to continue to communicate with the community and we have the evidence of one of the community members who came forward and said you know even at the very st meeting it was obvious that miss evans was extremely disrespectful to miss robertson and thereafter miss evans told miss roberts and did not permit her to come to any more of those meetings again material adverse action by miss evans towards miss robertson and then the other particular job duty that was taken away was resource allocation and that's an extremely important part and i believe the jury could agree of her job in which she asked there's three hundred and fifty people that she had to directly and indirectly reporting to her ensuring because timel providing these services was a huge issue making sure and moving around people in and duties to ensure that that this timeliness takes place that's what resource allocation resource allocation yes yes human resource allocation so these are all in the context of also the daily slights the you know the comments of you know i'm going to do things the right way and then the next part besides the material adverse action we also have to look at is the causation why would somebody who didn't even know mr cammon care and i think that miss evans said that herself she said i don't want you to do the same things to me that you did to mr cammon it's your fault that he's gone and you created this problem and she said that and we have testimony from a number of people who with respect to the promotion i believe that a jury could conclude that retaliatory motives were involved in this decision making you know the district court in the defendants try and minimize the fact that  absolutely no experience in income maintenance the very business of miles but we have testimony from others who say they were extremely concerned and panicked that that somebody was coming in who didn't have this have this experience that is from the community and as well or from section chiefs who said who are saying this is crazy you can't be hiring somebody without this theory very critical skill and i believe it would that argument mean that any in house candidate would be subjectively superior to any outside hires because they would have the state took over the milwaukee department because of the problems but you could have somebody from any of the counties who had experience in income maintenance you could have somebody from another state who had worked in income maintenance the afternoon your honour's name please the court my name is steven kilpatrick i'm an assistant attorney general with wisconsin department of justice representing the wisconsin department of health it was gunson department health service did not retaliate against cameron rather effort or the director resigned the department nine months later merely chose to hire another candidate that it thought was competent and qualified for the position answer is no your honor the there is no evidence regarding resource allocations and frankly not quite sure what that meant until a few minutes ago what resource allocation meant throughout the briefing that wasn't explained it wasn't pointed to by a miss robertson as a requirement or criteria in her position description and with regard to the community meetings i want to correct what opposing counsel said said that miss evans said not to come to the meetings that's not true miss evans may have said don't talk at the meetings but she never said don't come to meetings and it's it's clear why miss evans didn't want mr robertson to talk at the meanies because miss evans was the new boss for several months in between january and november ms robertson was the unofficial acting director so yes she would it were that is in the record is that mrs evans said to miss robertson you are not to speak to answer the questions that arose at the community meetings so if community leaders and citizens are asking questions the new leader the new director mr evans would then speak so mr robertson was not in that position as the director anymore at that time after miss evans hire so that's the big difference  another thing is it really doesn't make any sense about why miss evans would have any retaliatory animists towards miss robertson for forwarding a complaint that led to the resignation of someone she never worked with and she had no no interactions with mr cammon at all figure the reason that opposing counsel said was that there was a quote she she talked about referencing the complaint and she didn't want what happened to cam and to happen to her but that doesn't make much sense because it would assume that miss evans says assumes that she would be making some type of discriminatory come comments like mr cam and it and that doesn't make much sense at all regarding the failure to promote or the retaliation by failure to smoke because i want to make clear that in mr robertson's brief she believe has a wrong legal standard she has said that it is whether a jury could conclude mr robertson was the individual with the period qualifications in magic large organizations and the proper legal standard is found in millbrook and that is evidence of the plaintiff's competing qualifications does not establish evidence or pretext a less those differences are so favorable to the plaintiff that there can be no dispute among reasonable persons of impartial judgment that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the position and the record here shows that that these two finalists were comparable he qualified in the department decided to choose miss evans over miss robertson because believed she had a vision for running miles that miss robertson didn't have and there is and perform better in the interview and did have a masters there can be no dispute that somebody could see and decide that miss evans was more qualified than this robertson and that would sink her claim and there's also no evidence that that decision is a lie which what she would have to miss robertson would have to prove as pretext there's one other point i want to make in regard to the opposing  brief it's a reference to the reeves decision from the u s supreme court and i believe that mr robertson is just incorrect when she references that in her reply brief she cites reeves for the proposition that the court can't determine or consider impartial witnesses and that is not what reeves said reeves was a decision not at summary judgment but it was a post verdict jury verdict case about a matter of law judgment as a matter of law so it's not what mr robertson claims it stands for of course the the department would be unable to articulate a legitimate non retaliatory reason such as mr robertson's was not the better candidate this case the st instance of possible retaliation by the department would have been not to give the tasks of the director position to miss robertson and have her act as acting director for summer months that would be the st instance that they could retaliate against her and obviously that didn't happen they allowed her to work in that position for several months finally with regard to other true the slights the huffs the rolling of the eyes the literal turning of her back to mr roberts and telling her to be quiet just does not raise rise to the level of a material that and now it was that is in the affidavit of daniel mcneil another supervisor who said that the out who identified that as a key job and the supervision of the ten to twelve people directly and three hundred and fifty indirectly that isn't miss robertson's job description then with respect to the reasoning that while there are many times several times pointed out that miss who states that in the section chief meeting miss evans said that she needed to clean up the poor morale that miss robertson created by mr cameron's forced resignation i think implying or clearly stating that she saw this robertson as the bad actor in that scenario and that she needed to and taking that in connection with the idea that she wasn't going to wind up like mr cameron being forced out by this bad