not driving the boat out in a safe manner also not wearing a seatbelt and they dismissed him for that now he wasn't driving the boat he was a passenger but yet they added their charge so that they could fire him comparable employees that were tried with not wearing a seatbelt either driving or a person that drove a vehicle and got into an accident and that person was a smith so we are claiming that they trumped up the charges against holloway because they reporte in the opinion or in the in the judgment that you're appealing and as i read the district court opinion what the district court issue mean is that look we understand the allegation just fine that there was some kind of retaliation occurring here but the district court focused on what it saw as an evidentiary deficit that the contentions that you're making were just not supported by evidence so what what evidence can you point us to in the record that all supports that supports the argument you make so with respect to testimony or documents can you can you be specific as to evidence the individual that was the driver of the vehicle did not receive and that's my response to their off my reply to the response in these other five people is there is the record evidence as to what they didn't want to get or did not if you look at my reply brief right and he gets fired knowing that he never operated for the law so i don't know what else you need this far as proof is concerned about a retaliation unless you get a legal standard on contributory cause which requires evidence of intentional retaliation second the district court promptly reviewed the record in this case against that governing legal standard and correctly held that mr halloway spare bond argument address each of these points a little bit more fully first as the legal standard despite mr holloway's best attempts to misguide this court otherwise in the briefing the legal standard on contributory cause is not an undecided issue in this court there has not been any evidence presented by the plaintiff point to evidence in the record that c p acted with intentional retaliation and it's just missile of mr holloway  argument up some type of vance cause ation analysis that mr holloway relies on it legally as we know that from the cozy our decision he must show more than simply the factual cause a chain of fails on at least three grounds the first as as your honor referred to earlier you're exactly right by the time hearing occurred actually first of all she too did engage in protected activity as well as t employees are protected for notifying rail carriers work injuries there is absolutely no language in the statute that makes any distinction whatsoever between reported injuries that are very reportable alternately under the guidelines or not so the fact that j s reported an injury regardless of whether it was ultimately determined to be reported to ari it's irrelevant if there's no support in the plain language in fact to want to ninety four doesn't even use the word report it says notify the male carrier of a work injury so there's absolutely no support for that argument but that mr holloway relies on heavily in that in this case and moreover it is und a terms because there was no evidence of her conduct introduced at that hearing the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement require that the discipline be assessed only as to that hearing record because there was no evidence  and so they differentiate based on not and even to the extent they were comparable while they were active employees and they each were involved in the incident the record shows that the company reviewed the matter after the incident occurred with failing to operate a vehicle safely let me explain that what happened there your honor is is that if you look at the contractual notice that is required to be issued under the contract both of them are noticed on the hearing in the same notice so they collected the alleged violations and one hearing notice and addressed them to both of them you know this refers to them as alleged violations they refer to the hearing to be determined as to their responsibility if any there's no prejudgment there was no suggestion that he has apparently that either or both of those rules critical to that is that after the hearing and looking at the dismissal letter while they quote the hearing notice language in quotations what the hearing notice provided critical to know is that what the carrier found him to have violated is the rule t for which is the seat belt rule violation which applies equally to the driver and the passenger it does not both of in the language as well writing or operating the vehicle you must wear a seatbelt if it's equipped with one and so that's what he was found to have violated and then upon looking at his discipline record which had  three to four disciplinary suspensions prior in a very sort time period the curio concluded that  or negativity towards mr holloway after the report he had just one area suspensions prior to any prospective activity so they didn't act any differently they took in the report winning  that the hearing officer and others who reviewed mr how the hearing record here was an any way thinking considering talking about it that it injury report was in any way tied to their decision it's all about the seat belt violation that he e but we have presented evidence of other employees who violated seatbelt rule by at least and without those employees having reported a less work injury so this shows that if you regularly disciplines employees for seatbelt violations the fact no rule violation the could act case answers it's not required to show hundred percent identical circumstances on the affirmative defense and the coup that case relied on other violations by other employees they weren't the same infractions and they  discipline him for something else sort of reporting an injury that was in one of his fired and and rightfully that would be a reason to fire the person now the armstrong case it's trial the jury found in favor of the railroad the jury came back and said the you got discipline it's not related it wasn't retaliation it wasn't related to the injury i jury decided that not the court denied the motions for summary judgment at the beginning proceeded to trial and the jury made that decision and i believe that the