one point and it involves a single issue should the district court have granted the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the causation issue as it relates to luke train train and the single issue here is we contend that a plaintiff alleging retaliation must prove that the decision maker who terminated the plane knew about the protected activity at the time of determination and there's a lot of case law from the fifth circuit on this issue and we c that this essentially is nowhere to be found in the record at trial there is a complete failure of proof showing that the decision maker had knowledge which come out richardson and this is not a case where there is conflicting evidence about causation there's just no evidence on this awareness of protected activities there's just no evidence presented by the sea on point it's well settled if the decision maker was not aware of the protected activity there can be no causal connection and no retaliation claim as a matter of law and the entire argument is that the jury must not have believed the evidence but again there is no evidence on that essential element  not on that issue your honor the e e o c presented no evidence on causation so i wouldn't say there's conflicting evidence they presented no evidence that mr richardson had knowledge of protected activity so it's not a situation where they they said mr cheney hand complaining mr richardson or someone else went to mr richardson and complained there there is no evidence of that in this case at all and that means the fundamental flaw in this in this case as   both cases find that this causes all of that was not satisfied there was insufficient evidence presented it rejects concepts of well generalized knowledge managers that's not going to work you have to show the decision maker had knowledge even if the decision maker had a conversation even with h r that received the complaint of discrimination that's still not enough you have to show that a charge spoke to the decision maker about a protected activity both of these cases leave in turn are analyzed retaliation by law and show that the speculative inferences are just not sufficient they they don't satisfy the causation  some evidence on the element over here you can't satisfy an important element with the credibility argument over here you still have to have evidence to beat that basic did they ask him if he knew he didn't say that their argument appears to be they don't call it that has put some kind of cat's paw on the moment where they're trying to say with karin thornton who was the head of h r for that division she had received the complaint they put on evidence saying that and their argument is well she must have been for richardson but there's no evidence of that anywhere that's speculative it's not a reasonable inference the two cases that i mentioned earlier had similar facts and it was previously held by the circuit that while you can have reasonable inferences those would be d so i mean if you understand my question yes and so you're saying she said she never got one so let's take a hypothetical right hypothetically she receives a complaint what is our responsibility relative to a complaint about sexual harassment by an employee i think hypothetically had she received a complaint they would look into the matter they would conduct an investigation supervisor that you know that would depend on each company whether she did that or not i don't know that's not in the record here at all and that's the point i'm making but i said i understand they didn't have a sexual harassment they did have a policy but the policy just didn't say which is supposed to do when you get a complaint it did not mention reported to the super funds as i understand but the policy didn't say which is supposed to do when you get a complaint it's not at that level of detail on what is your a theory if you have one trying to figure out how from your point of view the jury went wrong in this case i'm not suggesting the jury was wrong but obviously you think so what what was there about the evidence that would have confused or misled the jury to come up with a verdict with which you evidence of that was communicated to the decision maker and in this case the decision maker that started in motion the process of criticizing performance of mr train r received the complaint and they assume without any have a denture a basis that that information made its way over to mr richardson is there any kind of instruction to the jury or any argument that your side i would have made to inform the jury that the supervisor needed to have known of the complaint there's no instruction on that element other than the standard instruction on causation that you have for these kind of cases but yes there were arguments that well let me deal with the instruction but you're not complaining that there was some jury instruction along those lines that should have been given but was not complaining about that that's correct what i'm saying is you're not complaining that there was an instruction along those lines that was given that should not have been if we were not complaining about well the jury was properly instructed on the law in connection with what they needed to find on this causal link i think that the problem though is that there is a complete failure proof on this one element the causation and you cannot assume that that information was communicated and the argument you're making now was made to the jury that there was no evidence of a causal link that cases addresses concepts can do jury make a decision based on circumstantial evidence and what's the difference between speculation and circumstantial evidence if there is maine where do we say this is just mere speculation are well or circumstantial evidence and and maybe if you look at her contractual evidence it's logical to conclude the way the jury d temp oral proximity evidence but this is circuit has also said well tempore proximity can be evidence and that's obviously circumstantial it's not sufficient when we're talking about circumstantial evidence this case is it's not a disputed issue whether or not the decision maker had knowledge of protected activity the key saw it here from the fist circuit addresses the concept that you know you could have reasonable inferences ok but they have to be reasonable in making these evidentiary leaps one person told another you can't just assume that even if they went to each other so your honor to circle back to your question i think there has to be a showing and sometime terminated but the case law that point to there the decision maker already had knowledge of that activity again that there is your your your initial time has expired and you say time for about a thank you make more morning to me please the court judge prado i think you know that that is an important question and the answer is yes circumstantial evidence can prove any point that a plant that of a party needs and manning two they didn't use the term six and pencil evidence but they clearly looked at something that was not direct evidence so what did the jury happy for of the year what happened between bringing a child to work day and the terminations up on bringing a child to work day mckinney makes this very offensive comment about the fifteen year old daughter's breast size so it gets very mothers very upset and so three people wind up going together over to h r training and and show up and thompson  the jury could find that in that in the six weeks between back bring your trial day and terminations richardson and thornton were working together to try to get rid of testified that she talked with richardson about whether whether there was grounds for firing try hand and in effect she suggested well we've just got to paper the files she said let's let's let's get an audit going and they didn't audit the whole division they audit only the two units that those three people were in training and was in it was one of two people in in recruiting and shaw and thompson were two of three or four people in  after that you know after those after the audit and before the firing of up and what did those what those auto show i mean did that they say they fired them both for poor poor performance but there was lots of evidence that their performance was adequate that in that in the middle of july richardson told training in what you're doing is fine just keep on doing it  try him and said that in fact said that he was the go to guy that at and and that and that he was far better as a recruiter than  it so that so the jury can find any and that h r had a history this h r department had a history of letting the letting the supervisor know that an employee had complain testified to them working together in this direction so the jury could have found that richard richest in florence and together decided to terminate them and that and that thornton knew because there was direct evidence that people i complain yes whether there was conflicting evidence about whether mckinney ever did did anything it was sexual insensitive to anybody if there was conflicting evidence about whether they knew whether the employees who were offended by this complained repeatedly to and and whether and and tried hanson and show us performance whether they were really lousy performance or whether they were were some of the best employees that in that small division so yeah there was a lot just and sickening evidence but there was sufficient evidence for them to find that wow you know they you know after think after i complain on on being child  things fell apart for them pretty quickly and behind the scenes that we've cited that the one that i mentioned earlier even if the conversations that terminations occurring still not sufficient because it is such an important elemental principle that you must have the hope the decision maker must have knowledge if you don't have that knowledge then it cannot be said that was written thank you