will be taken under advisement case number three for today's arguments is martin against  bringing because we claim that management did absolutely nothing when they had knowledge of the very much trust meant that miss martin recei and they were afraid that they couldn't be represented and taken care of if the union hierarchy couldn't even be taken care of we know that we have many witnesses w calling one an office prank and it only involved damage to county property never mentioning that it was miss martin who was actually the victim of a very hateful writing in the woman's only washroom at the adult probation department that was so much more that could have been done no one did anything the sheriff's office did nothing all the  hierarchy of the adult they should the punishment who was asked said i gave it down to the next person i gave it down to the next person and everyone says i didn't follow up at all no one were full of it and so what if they will move you away from twenty six dollars in california if you wish she doesn't want to go away from twenty six in california she is a highly regarded good morning in may it please the current i can hunting for forks county in the individual defendant plaintiff's claims seek to hold someone responsible for what she sees as the poor treatment she's experienced the decision of the district court should be affirmed for three speech retaliation and the decision to grant summary judgment in the individual favor should be affirmed because plaintiffs cannot establish a prima fascia case of st amendment or tell you ssion plaintiff identified her union activity as the sole protected beach that forms the basis of her st amendment claim the individual's response to the mistreatment plaintiff or thieved from her coworkers was not a deprivation likely to deter plaintiffs free speech or her union activity plaintiff motion for summary judgment identified only one action that was the basis of her claim and that was the january th teen anonymous anti union no but even considering all of the incidents that plaintiff identifies none of the actions of the individuals amounted to deprivation individuals took the appropriate steps to investigate and address the treatment plaintiff was being subjected to by her coworkers or by unknown people and that the individuals repeatedly health clai submit reports and most importantly plaintiff's ability to conduct her union business was never restricted in addition plane just cannot use a one thousand nine hundred and three claim to assign personal liability to the individual for the actions of her coworkers claims it has no evidence that the individuals were connected to any of the anonymous notes and in fact she stated that she does not believe defendant was on hey what actually left the anti union no there's no deprivation that was caused by the individual's claims would still fail as the evidence does not show that her union activity was the motivating factor behind any of the individual's actions plaintiff doesn't present any direct or circumstantial evidence that her union involvement was a sufficient condition for her through suspension and the individuals have presented abundant evidence that plaintiff would have been what event suspended regardless of her union activity and moreover plaintiff had been involved with the union for almost ten years by the time any of the alleged retaliation happened so for her union activities to be a motivating factor plaintiff would have to show that as long as she conducted union activity a deprivation such as her suspension was bound to occur but it doesn't stand to reason that the individual would all of a sudden retaliate against plaintiffs for something she's been doing for years and that they would discipline a nonunion employee in relation to the same incident so turning briefly seven liability directly as the county is not a plaintiff employer so therefore the district court's decision granting summary judgment for cook county was correct and should be affirmed so this has plaintive cannot meet two of the three elements claims and she has not shown a basis for her claims against county and if this one is no question you have one minute at the court has no questions then we would ask that the district court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the discrimination claim based upon alleged anti muslim animus and nd her retaliation claim under title seven alleging that she suffered her fifteen day suspension and other adverse consequences motivated by a desire to retaliate against her for complaining about religious discrimination against her if the court has questions about the forfeiture issue i'd be glad to answer them otherwise i think they're fairly addressed in our brief and this is sort of an unique case i think in this court where the district court made an express finding a forfeiture based on this court's precedent about not responding to summary judgment arguments and i think that finding is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review certainly the circuit court of nd circuit has so held and we urge the court to adopt the same standard which makes sense suspension and now seems to be focusing entirely on the hostile work environment matter but i think the fifteen day suspension was the focus of the court the district court's decision on the retaliation aspect of retaliation claim that the plaintiff had not forfeited and essentially said that there was overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that the head of the department's reasons for disciplining her were amply justified by the facts overwhelming evidence that she had was evasive and made false statements about what happened outside the court room of the the rap artist that she went to the probation violation hearing for even though he wasn't in her caseload  she falsely denied going into the court room she falsely denied giving the artists associate her cell phone all of those reasons are amply justified by the the evidence provided and there is not a shred of evidence that the reason for this expansion was actually some retaliatory motive much less religious discrimination there the focus is not whether a jury might reach a different conclusion if it were the personnel department  for the adult probation department the issue is whether the reasons given for that discipline were a law a pretext to cover up a real reason which is you know illegal retaliation or religious discrimination and there's absolutely no evidence to support that type of finding even though the plaintiff wants to call the these charges trumped up but turning to the hostile work environment issue which seems to be the focus of the arguments in  oral arguments here there's no doubt that there were some unfortunate incidents that happened there were unpleasant to the plaintiff and nobody's happy about that the question is whether they provide a basis for some type of intentional infliction of emotional distress claim by the plaintiff against the perpetrators but they have never been found or whether she can pin the office of the chief judge with title seven liability for essentially  condoning a hostile work environment against her by virtue of these incidents and i think the even beyond the forfeiture is shown so you have one minute left thank you your honor to simply say that there were a few isolated incidents there was no pattern connected to any protected status there was the one anti muslim not but that was not severe enough war certainly part of a pervasive pattern to support liability and there's no basis to find employer liability on the ground that the employer did not discover or respond to it adequately the suggestion by the plaintiff that it basically did nothing is absolutely untrue including with respect to the bathroom graffiti which has no connection with her religion or her charges of discrimination it was exhaustive lee investigated by the in house counsel and simultaneously investigated by the sheriff's department the fact that they couldn't find out who perpetrated it doesn't trigger title seven liability then you know that's what the court asked for the