for reprisal it's a brief order limiting the research in this case to an examination of the letters of april two thousand and five of the specific letters mentioned  judge and his limitation on the reprisal or letters april twentieth and twenty seventh prior to that those two letters a letter was issued on april twelfth three letters in whether or not court and i'm asking for reversal of that order based on a genuine issue of material fact regarding westerfield's here you received the medical records from diana keith like based on her into david which he she stated she sent magistrate in her report recommendation for this case said she was going to find on behalf of the plaintiff diana geetha line because she she said it wasn't clear whether or not the harm that was done was done on july twenty ninth when the penalty was given or whether it was done on june twentieth when the union settled the case if you look at it july twenty ninth she received a seven day suspension note the last time and no no last pay but she wasn't working she hadn't been working since september twenty ninth two thousand and four and so but but  theory for the harm that was done to her my theory for the harm that was done to or not that she lost any time or any money no but was that she got something that was called a suspension but that in fact did not reduce any time or money is that correct or not well your honor is that part of it to that extent that you're saying it is correct if you look at the book to the extent i'm not saying but if you look at the penalty itself or the penalty itself says  violations then that's what it says the basis for saying you've been suspended before when they are considering whether to do something to or again should something happen but which hasn't happened there should something happen in the future yes i'm not saying it's nothing i just want to get it what it is you want all the suspension it's not really a suspension in ordinary layman's terms it's a it's a warning when it was reduced to a warning your honor whatever anything more than a warning it was it was  suspension that yes that's why it was grieved to the young and the the if if followed ok it's a suspension which gets you your your union rights or whatever it's right but it like to spend the time that i have available to me to focus on several facts before the court that i think sways the finding in terms of reversal of summary judgment the first of these facts is that at all times diana the flying was operating in her conduct under the order of the postal system the postal system has a order which it is label postal system seventeen twenty three it's a change of of is a change order of employment she was given one on september twenty eighth two thousand and four which changed her from working mid city under mr westerfield to working at murray station under bill miller that fact is extraordinarily important that p s seven hundred twenty three is still opera today it has never been changed when diana he's lying said i did not send him the records because he was not my manager she was just talking about her assignment s diana was operating under the system in discovery and the letters i'm sorry i didn't didn't get your argument was that she didn't respond to letters and therefore she got a warning she did not respond to mr west her answer is i didn't have to respond her answer was i sent him the medical records through the union but she never advise them or your that she was in the medical records i thought she was claiming she had the darkness in the medical records now that the doctor said the medical records to the f m l a office at the postal facility she was granted it again on january twelfth one april specially got to receive the leave before the she she contacted the doctor purportedly about sin that the letter from the nervous and nervous condition in the hospital on september twenty eighth dr came in and said you can't go back to work she made the application then she filled out the wreck she had the dr phil  mr westerfield sent on january twelfth requested that she send him the issue was him and shall never did the medical records january twelfth she never did  never did that yesterday she didn't do what the letter asked her to do she did not do with the letter is to do january twelfth she got a warning for not having done that and yes she got a letter of  feb eighth for not having done that yes given her the change order is that another way of saying she didn't do it because she didn't think she had to do it she thought it was a mistake is in no way saying she thought it was an error a mistake she was of the development of the case on jan on april second her doctor recommended an undefined leave of absence and she she wrote a letter to that effect to the f a medical office or to the proper proper office there at the postal facility on april eighth mr westerfield received a letter from a paul specter this letter said he had been and that mr westerfield had been sued for discrimination in reprisal by diana peet line on december first of two thousand and four four days after that mr westerfield issued a letter of january twelfth asking for diana keith lines medical records diagne feist sent that letter immediately to the  union she called a mr brummet who was for the person that was at least responded to or that he was not the right person to reply to but told her the right person to reply to was the east area manager which was at that time an acting manager called bill bill miller the person that she was she thought she was under diana  medical records were delivered shiba assumed that there was no further cause to follow any further directives in her april twentieth letter which said some interesting on leave of absence due to sickness and does not respond but the she has her affidavit in indicates that the the union was representing her at that time two days after the april twenty seventh meeting which she didn't attend she guesses suspension it is important i think for the court to understand what was going on here in a twenty one day period if you're looking at at reprisal in a twenty one day period the court is received the information that i mean mr westerfield has received the information that you request did not get it from guy in a key thing directly becomes the issue when she when she was available and felt better she made another she made another request but filed another complaint in august of two thousand and five against mr westerfield himself in answering that complaint where she accuses him of reprisal he states i did not get the records from diana therefore she did not follow instructions from the record he had the many correct is the problem with it seems to me with mr westerfield's argument is letter never stated  you from some other source she didn't say anything no she didn't she didn't write if she didn't get him word that she was sending him by another or nothing that messenger at all no she didn't do that i see  please the court then glassman on behalf of the postmaster general it seems that the court is fully apprised of the facts of the case i'll do my best to answer any particular factual questions that the court may have as for the legal issue i would direct the court i think the key part of the record is klein's own complaint record entry three if you look at paragraph fifty six fifty seven fifty eight and sixty four i think it's consistent with what has been discussed this morning but if you just look at paragraph fifty eight and sixty four they read at westerfield sent a second priority letter on april twentieth two thousand and five on dated ordering diana de flying to a pre disciplinary meeting for april twenty eighth diana the flying did not respond to at westerfield's pre disciplinary hearing order because she was under orders from her doctor not to return to work and she believed he was not her supervisor based on the assignment order so i believe it's undisputed has never been disputed as set forth in her own complaint and accompanying affidavit that the fine received instructions if nothing else to attend his pretty disciplinary interview she simply did not respond to them at all and the post office then proceeded to issue this seven day no time off the discipline such as it was did come there was that enough well it's not enough because i think well first of all that's asked of the prime aphasia case not as to pretext but as to the prime official case i think the district court got that right as well that there was no causal connection because the april orders the april letters were virtually identical to the january letters so in other words there was no there was no warning letter that came from the january letters yes there was  genuine get a seven day suspension from the no there's progressive discipline in the post office system so what happened was that there were the january letters they were ignored and by the way these are all all of these letters you the court can compare them are all attached to her complaint you can see the form letters the january letters were nord she got a letter warning that april letters were ignored and because she'd already received a letter warning she got the seven day no time off report rely on this analysis yes as to the prime aphasia case with respect to this idea that the same orders had gone right that undercuts the that because the you know the laws that temporal proximity alone isn't enough but temporal proximity with something else and here the court said well temporal proximity alone is pretty close but undercutting any causal connection inference here is the fact that you had the identical stuff happen and that's in the in the district judges i was looking through before i would rewrite but i didn't put my finger on i believe that is correct i can i believe that the pen is cancel referred to the complaint of diane keith line paragraphs fifty six to sixty four and then he was just beginning to talk about the causal connection or undermined at the causal connection by referring to a pattern a pattern that existed in sending out three letters one when someone does not obey and following out with a discipline the first discipline came on february eighth when she did not when diana keith line did not honor the letters of january and the second the second set was in this case was limited in terms of considering reprisal to the april letters what did not happen in january and corning to diana keith lines affidavit which did not take place was  the opportunity that diana gave find used once she and used the union urn listed the union on her side when she got that letter of warning on feb eighth she immediately called the union she was occupied with the union on april twelfth when she got another letter which resembled the letter of of january twelfth now in the meantime mr westerfield hears or sees in a letter from a paul spector the appointed investigator you have been accused of discrimination in retaliation by diana ghaith line on a complaint filed december first he knows that he absolutely knows that he says he didn't know it before and there's lots of lots of writing to show that there is some thought that he should have known it but nonetheless undisputedly on on april eighth he got a letter saying he was being sued by dion and he thought on april twelfth he sends are an identical quote form letter saying please send me your medical documentation back to the time when you started your leave that goes back to october second of two thousand and four in the meantime he gets a with this letter from paul specter he gets it quite a questionnaire affidavit for would you please fill out an answer to these questions he's asked did you treat diana gheesling differently from the way you treated others he said not when you have any more work for her to do at  city so when i transfer her to a back back from in the change order back from a med city to mercury station when i did that i also transferred to others h other evidence i don't think you have to go outside the realm of the april letters to look for the magistrate did she went back to january so this is a pattern we just threw out this idea of reprisal within twenty one days between april to twenty ninth mr mr westerfield hears that he's been sued he's been reported for discrimination and acting or reprisal and by april twenty ninth she diana his penalty there is nothing else to happens in those twenty one days if you're looking for additional evidence look at what he said in his affidavit which die at which holly collins and she was cross examined by by the defendant