improper is tribal issues a fact remain as to whether or not national can be held liable for this disability discrimination against miscarry evidence presented for its tribal issues of fact under two theories of liability vicarious liability and direct liability first when drawing the evidence in the light most favorable of the misess garrity the nationals this is and to directly in prematurely involve itself in the local grievance process bri which provided her the only opportunity to relieve the discrimination which was occurring at the local level over after the national took over the grievance process things did not improve and evidence demonstrates that the national team simply marked it as a result and claimed that there was not sufficient evidence for him to make a ruling over when he was pressed about this he said he could have just requested information this decision not to properly investigate a grievance was out parities severe physical disability and the discrimination i was occurring after the local level prison tribal issues back as to whether or not national supported and or outlined his prejudicial animists form as guarantee specifically because she was disabled calling him calling her a rehab employee this decision by the national point someone who was supposed to be helping miscarry but instead  harbor prejudicial feelings about her because of her disability also creates a tribal issue in fact as to whether or not the national supported and encouraged the local discriminatory actions this also creates a tribal issue back under the direct discrimination prong of liability this is because when drawing all the evidence and why most fail to mister miscarry a reasonable jury could conclude that agent's call games was prejudicial against ms garrity because of her disability as stated before calling her a rehab employee and the nationals the citizen to appoint him to be in charge of the grievance structure more adequate standard would be that national is what a national union is held liable for the discrimination or liabilities of their local union if the local is to dissolve and they  and morning ending it please the court my name is cassidy yeah and i'll be discussing the district court's error in granting a motion to drop the local union from this case this notion was granted an error because it violated guarantees due process rights and in alaska local to voluntarily dismiss itself from this case we asked this court to remain on the case and allow garrity to bring her claims based on the locals misconduct after being named a defendant in this case the local news all and filed a procedurally improper motion to be dropped from the case under rule twenty one dollars of the federal rules of civil procedure the constitution affords played against and meaningful opportunity to respond to such motions and the nevada district courts own local will provide litigants fourteen days to respond to these motion however if the district court did neither it granted this motion or days after it was filed in a two sentence order and just missed the local from this case aaron is timely response to the motion was entered into the record ignored the due process violations inherent in this procedure are so clear that the state union who now reveals itself to be the successor to the local does not make a single atte defend this process on its merits instead it argues that these errors should be ignored because garrity waved them pursuant to the new munoz rule however the purpose  the munoz rule as a sport stated in re cellular one hundred and one is to protect the integrity of the court but in this case the integrity of the court would be put at far greater risk by allowing the procedure that took place below to stand that procedure allowed a defendant to voluntarily dismiss themselves from a case in a manner that seemed routine in a two sentence order under a rule that is never used for this purpose additionally this court has held consistently not where arguments are deemed way if the court has discretion to hear them to prevent a miscarriage of justice and that exception is especially of political here where guarantees due process rights are at stake and the dish or court or as the supreme court has instructed multiple times courts it should is not at the dissolution itself was improper our intention is that the motion that was filed to remove the local from the case was reinstated erroneous leave because even though the local  litigants are able to avoid liability by dissolving and that's exactly what happened in this case and part of the error in granting the motion without giving garrity a chance to respond to it was that the court never inquired into who would be this the local successor whether local had insurance and how he's claimed to move forward despite the local dissolution and our contention is not to bring the local back from the dead it's simply that it was unclear at the time who the successor was moreover at that time it appeared that the national was continuing to defend against these claims on behalf of the local and that claim is supported by the fact that in  national the local stated that the national was pulling its ons to in the event of you know a finding of liability against the local and that statement is so crucial here because it was the only  in the motion that went to the locals liability and it suggests that despite the low polls dissolution that liability would continue to be adjudicated or over it in the motion to dismiss that the national filed  defend against these claims indiscriminately without distinguishing between the claims against itself and the claims against the local and our point is simply that when you look at all of this procedure it is so obscure it is so unfair and unjust to miscarry and violates her due process rights that in this case there should be an exception to this munoz rule because the purpose of the rule is to protect the integrity of the port and here especially when the the end has no argument as to the merits of this procedure that rule the purpose of that rule would be undermined by upholding a waiver of these claims because  the violations are so clear and we are simply asking for guarantee that how her day in order and to not allow a litigant to escape liability by dissolving and then voluntarily dismissing her evidence and you all reasonable inferences in her favor judge gordon found that there was no tribal issue that the national the only defendant before him was liable i mean the longstanding carbon fuel standard because she did not show that it is instigated encouraged supported or ratified any disability discrimination by the local judge gordon also found there was no tribal issue that the national itself discriminated against the power against appellant because she pointed to no evidence stablish ing that it was motivated by hostility toward her disability when acting on her grievance and those grievances did not involve claims of disability they involve the myriad of other complaints such as work assignments the slowing of the mail and not paying her overtime to file grievances appellant has not pointed to any evidence that shows the national treated her differently than any other bargaining unit member and actually treated her better but no reasonable inference can be dismiss the local from the case this is a tacit admission that her claims are really against the local and not the national but in two thousand and thirteen she appealed the order dismissing the local from this action and her court appointed counsel of bands and that issue on appeal and the rain man man they named the national as the only defendant strategic litigation choices have consequences and because of the  summary judgment but do not overview does not mean that appellant gets a complete view over orders rendering summary judgment are not to be overturned based on arguments and evidence led against it not raise below as this court stated in carmen n jacobson doing so amounts to requiring the district court to act as the nonmoving parties attorney to become a player in the absence of adversarial process and this is unfair to the district court to either lead against these cases may be delayed while the court acts as the non moving parties advocate and moving party who is deprived of the opportunity to be heard on evidence and arguments not raised in opposition to summary judgment now more specifically a that in her reply brief that even if the mandate will prohibit the return of the local into the case as a party it would not prevent this court or the district court from holding that some other entity should remain accountable for the actions of the local we agree that it would not have prevented her from arguing that in judge borden but we disagree that she can argue that to this court because she did not argue success or liability to judge or the court should not overturn judge barnes decision because national did not take inconsistent positions in this litigation it never argued that it was the successor to the local and the district court did not accept an earlier position of the national that it now seeks to disavow and under both hamilton and massa you have this destroys you just left out and the national made no misrepresentations to the district court in connection with successorship it accurately stated that the local members including the pal filing terminations reports with the department of labor and i harassed which it did and while the national did tell the court that it was holding the locals bank account in escrow it took the position that by doing so it was not obligated to pay any debts of the local out of its own hands at after remain an appellant had all the information she needed to argue as accept the theory of liability against the national in fact it's the exact same information and document she relies upon in this appeal but she did not argue that the national was a success or she argued only vicarious liability which is a separate and distinct theory by the already indeed she raised the issue of how the locals money was handled as evidence of vicarious liability not success or liability and the reason why she didn't argue that the national of the successor was because she knew it was not she knew that the members of the local had voted to go with the state she participated in that vote and she knew that the video well terminating letter filed by the state shows that the local dissolved to the state but having lost on her vicarious liability  ignored the can successor liability was not right intelligence foreign granted summary judgment on vicarious liability for the simply is not true her argument is based on her assumption that as the only remaining defendants and national would defend the conduct of local but her assumption was not reasonable it was clear from the outset that the national contended that it was not liable for the local conduct that was one of its affirmative defenses to her amended complain and so there was no and it also made clear in the papers filed on the motion to drop local that it did not contend that a successor so there was no reason to expect that it would defend the local conduct in any event it was incumbent on palin to raise to judge for in every theory of liability she flat apply and her argument to the contrary is tantamount to asking for piecemeal appeals let me try various liability and if that doesn't work then i'll  ask for a chance to argue a different theory of life building in the evenings and this should not be allowed there will be no miscarriage of justice by holding appellant to the strategic choices of her appointed justify a different result in this case instead she argues that carbon fuel shouldn't be applied because the local is dissolved but this is just a backdoor way to raise her to successor lengthily argument judge gordon cannot be faulted for applying carbon fuel when vicarious liability was the only theory of liability that helen put before him and judge gordon correctly found no evidence to establish the tribal issue of fact on their curious liability you looked at appellant one hundred and eleven dollars pages of notification to the national and found that not only did they not notify the national about any claim discrimination or retaliation by the local but also that at best they shown constructive knowledge which is not enough to be carbon fuel a pallet of mice and no evidence showing that the national knew about or ratified discrimination by the local that was based on her disability  she also pointed to no evidence of causation of the nationals direct playbill of all she has done is she contends that because the national knew she was disabled and did not handle the grievances she wanted that's enough but mere notice of her disability is does not form circumstantial evidence that it's motivated adverse action she was required to point to specific evidence in the record from which reasonable inferences can be drawn and she does not talent was not shy about complaining about mistreatment she filed six thousand three hundred exhibits pages of exhibits that she purport show mistreatment if there was evidence of disability discrimination large who would then after that date represent them they agree there was a debate about what to do with the five or six thousand dollars it was left over and it was decided to contact the national with the out what village that  simply draw an inference is in favor of the national rather than drawing the entrances in favor of miscarriage you which is of course the standard at this point in the case for example for example  appellate stated police stated that the national treated miscarriage better than they treated other employees however that is simply just drawing inferences of the evidence that we presented in favor of the national for and then it repeatedly marked your grievances as resolved when there were clearly still problems and so just because they made a decision that they don't make with other boys doesn't mean they were treating her better they were treating her words because they took over grievance process and didn't help her moreover in scoggins e mail he called her a rehab employee and said that she is never satisfied until she gets exactly what she w however miscarriage is entitled to not be satisfied with what she wants to simply to be treated fairly and have her grievances heard and that didn't happen in this case moreover well i would like to make it clear that we are not challenging the dismissed from this case and the claims against the local disappeared and neither opponent has cited a case or made an actual substantive argument as to why that procedure was ok and even if  opportunity to bring these claims and no there is no substantive argument as to why that should be happening is claims are dismissed in it procedure that was completely unfair to her and also the state union would not be prejudiced by arguing these claims now because they're purely issues of law and not a fact which is another basis on which this or repeatedly has heard waived arguments and so the state can make any argument now that it could have morning and the matters submitted this time