did something right and i think you know look at the real commonsense that is unusually suggested temporal practically once you get the power to do it he did it i think that ninety nine days and i do think that that that really should have ended the the increase of course increase but they went on and really didn't apply the other arguments that we were making which is that there was a campaign of retaliatory rascal that's why guy lost the primary election a month later because he was the most senior part time officer with a good clean record he was promoted to full time and then this campaign her assman started against him where we rested reciting the record all the facts he denies things occurred we have other witnesses saying reported my client good things and actually after my client was fired kevin hanin leap frog two other part time off who had given that give my client's full time job but there is there are questions as to whether this was these things were retaliate or whether they were real whether other people were or flicking lights or doing what they whether whether he was sleeping or not sleeping i mean all these things are subject to looking one side of the other but i assume your argument is that when the district case that cost about the the standard being that you have to cast substantial down on a fair number of the reasons advanced by the employer and after seeing below get it mention that i  says we're saying that this is the standard you only have to cast doubt on a fair number of them because once you do a few of them then it becomes a credibility issue with the whether you know we should believe the employer or any of the other ones so you know i don't think that i don't know how you look at the record and determine that any doubt with respect to my client denying incidents occurred other people having contradictory statements about what occurred so we didn't do think the evidence on a whole  two areas i'm one the court construed the union appearing union association claim which i believe is controlled by harvey from last year as well as reinforced by the law that this year and fact last month kind of a hybrid or a pure free speech or union speech claim and i said it right it was an association claim and it is pure and from the start you know we haven't been arguing that the retaliation is on the basis of any yes and that was that occur in connection with his investigation of briggs grievance and and to kind of backtrack a little bit briggs was on probation because of an alleged sleeping incident which was you know has had  says at that particular meeting well you've got to stop this if you live by this we're going to die by the sword and then she ultimately did not give him the tape she called the sheriff she sent the sheriff a letter the sheriff describes the letter as over that's what the defendants say the defendants there are to the extent that i understand what they're saying they're saying he wasn't they are investigating a grievance he was there trying to rat out his fellow officers requiring public concern when it's clearly throughout from complaint up to the briefing we never argue the content it's strictly actions that he took or took on behalf of the union and i believe lardy that the court had to look at that separately there's no public concern requirement because public concern effectively is satisfied as a matter of law and any other quarrel that i have with the with the district court is he looks have direct evidence of that we also have teeth over later saying this was at a deposition she indicated that yes she did have an issue with roy it was really using his position as a union stiller to file grievances which in her opinion upset good governance at the jail so that's that's a direct evidence but we also have timing in the context of these grievances that are going through the process when he's actually fired they weren't resolved he is collective participating on the union collective bargaining agreement for the next agreement at the same time this is all going on so so he is being an active thorn in their side when they terminate him so i of what before they fired him it wrote him up for a couple of cell phone violations in the cell phone violations the nd policy required when you were on duty the cell phone was in the break room they wrote a mock when the cell phone was in the break room and the person who wrote them up was deputy warden chief over and at her deposition she agreed at all times the cell phone was in the break room so they were writing him off for four additional unfounded  disciplinary measures so you know under under those facts i mean i believe that the court committed clearer and should not have granted summary judgment on count one with respect to the other claims included that in his grievance when he found his grievance of the contract and so you know the question you cross appealed the district court's ruling on that regard i did i did i did you talk about the temporal proximity what's wrong with this argument that really we need to look at when did drake get the power the ability to fight these people well i think that with regard to the briggs case who got a good defend in that case and that is  charges nothing so because who is the sheriff at the time he actually was acting on behalf of these claims by other officers and he was making the terminations mr briggs never agreed  there are some things right out of the contract and in this case i think that mister issue with regard his discrimination based on this union association claim i think  a contract and based on the fact that there's two separate provisions in the contract and issue that the best evidence that these issues are derived from the contract is both of these individuals included them in their grievances with the greg said he was terminated retaliation for his campaign and mr hinds or the image terminated they're not pursuing a contract claim here they're pursuing constitutional i know what they originally started out with this contract what's your best case i think that just the fact that  this is right no this this is you know everybody is disputing the fact why isn't this a perfect case to go to trial well because we don't know who we don't know do we know that it was an accretion of episodes of misconduct or there was no misconduct at all to going through with regard to mr briggs especially there were three incidences in two thousand and fifteen where he was disciplined and disciplined per violations of count of jail policy that discipline was never agreed fifteen days in the contract degree if you don't agree with the basically lose the right and so he did lose the right but it doesn't say something happened that was necessarily you know that you were necessarily wrong if you chose not to grieve it well i think that's actually correct i think terminated soon after the sheriff was sworn in and those two individuals who are actually ran against him but if you look at the actual facts of the case you look at the content of the cases  happened during the campaign yes and that definitely that's political speech that's definitely a matter of public concern talking about what they would do to change the cancer talk about what they would do to change the sheriff's the speech it was during the campaign was not necessarily for the benefit of the public it was it was personal it was personal animus basically anything said in a campaign with other people is going to be personal for the other people because you're criticized but it's