please the court sonia dotson has been before this court before on to another the principal argument that we have is that the claims were sufficiently pled in iran his sleigh dismissed  the dismissal say staged by the district court in particular i mean a supposed custom posse in practice of discrimination in retaliation against women officers in the syracuse police department secondly we allege that the allegations of to those claims as background evidence as to the retaliation that sonya dawson continued to suffer until she ultimately was terminated by the syracuse police for an third the summary judgment decision by judge moore  improperly ignored the evidence of the disparate treatment the evidence of discrimination and the evidence that presented issues a fact as to whether or not she was treated differently as a result of her gender and her if you take a look at the record with respect to what was presented by the plaintiff and not considered by the district court there are records falsification by another officer at record at thirty one eighty eight through thirty one ninety seven references counseling for an offense that was done by a white male that exceeded anything that sonia dotson had done additionally failure to follow directions resulted in a written reprimand however when my client was ordered to sit down quote like a dog close quote as observed by kimberly calvary's she was charged with insubordination and given a five day written suspension additionally even when the investigation reflects the word in insubordination by the officer the officer is then charged with not insubordination but lack of courtesy or not acting properly alleged police said don't hire any more females he was having too much trouble with them and i think the record reflects in our brief records the derogatory terms that were used by the supervisors of mr ots and with both respect to race and gender and even saying a bias and a discriminatory intent which was not considered by the district court as mr barrett said in accordance with the syracuse police department insubordination is in the eye of the beholder he said that the record it ten sixty three at deposition when it is in the eye of the beholder and the syracuse police department has been put on notice repeatedly that they have this custom policy and practice and yet they have done nothing to correct that you'd lost on like you lost on the custom policy of practice of the first time around contain complaints post datsun one where her complaint was was filed in two thousand and four or two thousand and six the allegations in the complaint and the second amended complaint in this action involve discriminatory conduct that occurred new allegations to an l claimant but but it's crystal clear that you're precluded on them a no claim notwithstanding the verdict in and your other offer that for some reason you think the district court judge was wrong as a matter of law earlier on doesn't matter you you're you you didn't appeal that you didn't win on it it's forecloses judge from levens even even wrong decisions are precluded by rules judicata a custom policy in practice allegation that was brought in the first datsun one involved the fact that pornography was indulged in allowed at the syracuse police department the other along with other allegations one of the noted in the new allegations include being disparate lee disciplined being subjected to disparaging statements descriptive terms about her gender about her race and being placed under the supervision of individuals who are reviewing her computer usage not other but now other people and that is in evidence yes and i think you can you address the retaliation claims as i understand your argument one of the arguments you make is that the district court eared smith's in the retaliation claim in connection with the february two thousand dismiss and to amend her complaint and that discipline closely followed there was ongoing proceedings and that the discipline closely followed so that retaliation so that the he only looked at he only looked at the saying well you're looking at the two thousand and three complaining for now are griffey and alleging retaliation in two thousand and eight or two thousand and ten and then he failed to look at the ongoing proceedings both in district court because we had to retry that case again in november of two thousand and eleven and so then that two thousand and twelve discipline that closely followed miscalibrated his return to work for murray o c complaint where a desk was moved and so forth you know we we feel that that was overlooked and i think this court's decision in two decisions i just would like to make reference to his vast because first his emperor's ambulance which refle the cat's paw theory about the coworker and the coworkers intent being imputed to the employer because he they knew or should have known of that discriminatory bias based upon the history of these individuals the plausible pleading of the retaliatory intent as identified invest was with the coworker knew or desired ashes to result in adverse employment actions the testimony b dell by barrett and by miguel all ever dence that they knew what was going on and they went ahead to do that the other cases that i would draw the reference to is the walsh versus new york city housing authority  from july in your honor your honour's dissent in that notwithstanding i believe that is the applicable provisions of that break in the law is exactly what was happening and continues to happen in dash three two three nine dash c v specifically referenced earlier footnote for thank  factor that the poet keeps overlooking here is that the compared to others with whom she seeks to compare herself or not see the cells in our community service officers the actual police officers those individuals are governed by a separate labor agreement a separate disciplinary policy and they're in entirely different bargaining unit that has a whole separate group of rights responsibilities and job duties the incidence of other just on the record  believe they're exactly on point the opponent here and her second amendment complaint she seeks to state that there was a couple few incidents along the way that may have happened post dots and one but she doesn't actually allege anything that's a custom policy or practice she tries to recycle of pornography in the workplace allegation that was datsun one and was actually to get it exhaustively as the district court noted in dots of one she seeks to point out you know to use this allegation that she helped a police later she gave miss calvary's is not anything to do with the e e o c can eat o c complaint she notes that she went once with her that she offered her advice on child support that he's she provided moral support during a difficult period that she was having with a personal relationship insubordinate in one instance a police officer didn't give full effort during a training drill again she overlooks the fact that all the instances she cites these are police officers their job duties are inherently very different from a c s o and their responsibilities are very different and their disciplinary methods and means are very different because they want to separate part of a unit and governed by a separate bargain contract additionally i'd wish to know as we know in our brief was asked at her deposition well what facts do you have to support your belief that this is discriminatory retaliatory conduct she says something along the lines of well the facts are what i believe they are and as the district court properly no sense decision mere speculation or conjecture is not enough to survive a motion to dismiss a motion for summary judgment especially a motion for summary judgment after she's had full discovery in the matter and the best she can provide in terms of why it is that she trial dismissals where they think they're right on the law that that and that claim was taken care of their tally ation aspect of it and summary judgment that could do you mind addressing this said the two thousand and twelve suspension which was partially which was dismissed it as a motion to dismiss stage the retaliation claim if i understand correctly and in reading the briefs carefully i believe her claim is that there was temporal proximity because she had just alone can be in certain circumstances evidence of retaliation but in this case the testimony that was uncontroverted and the depositions indicated that during a meeting in which she was required to attend as part of the job duties her superior captain trudeau told her to stop playing with her cell phone or something along those lines and she became what was described across the board as irate began yelling at him he indicated this was inappropriate conduct for that meeting and to go private office where they did discuss it she continued to break him in continue saying you can't speak in that way you can't tell me what to do there's no dispute that i see in the record that that conduct took place so whether  took place within three months or five months of the award in datsun one on the trial is it should be a role in this matter because it's clear independently supported by her own testimony which she indicated she became agitated and made statements that were an arguably insubordinate to a superior officer and to it was across the board described during depositions as her becoming irate and not following instructions to go in another office so that the entire that she could have been disciplined much more severely than she actually was she was given a five day suspension but for insubordination she could have been terminated and in fact i believe it was on the first insubordination two thousand and eight insubordination the original the recommendation of terminations is exactly the evidence of the retaliation and the discrimination mr sweeney recommended terminations the arbitrator in the matter that went to judgment she weak and then if you look at for them to say well the police officers are different than the c e o so's when the record shows that sergeants police sergeants are in charge of c s serves you've disobeying a direct order a thirty one forty six he got a one day furlough at thirty one forty three for yelling at sonia he was quoted as saying broads can't work together and f ing broad a thirty one thirty seven through thirty one thirty eight liver tour was was disciplined for sending a photo of his genitals to a woman who didn't want them he got a one day furlough and a written reprimand miss holmes the victim in that case in that investigation said she didn't want to talk about it because she was fearful of retaliation in the form of discipline ms eggers an officer she was found to be insubordinate by using