versus j p morgan chase the plaintiffs was terminated twenty four hours after she had announced her intention to send exit letters about a client who she had recommended severing j p morgan's relationship with the previous week that recommendation came after a few months of observing twenty four different red flags which were also acknowledged by j p morgan's own risk department which had been disregarded by her supervisor dismissed as as as not significant and in which other evidence of animists also manifested itself leading up to her term nation even after her determination the district court judge s found here that indeed there was protected activity that ms sharkey had complained about to her supervisor wire fraud in the form of an escrow account being used by this client client without any known authorization ms sharkey's other complaints concerned hallmarks of other species of fraud wire fraud mail fraud bank fraud and also money laundering furthermore yes there is judge chin in fact that is one of the cement is the indicators of animus here and also indeed one of the issues of fact ms sharkey recommended exit on july twenty fourth she had a meeting with her supervisors on july twenty a separate and nondiscriminatory or non prohibited recent for terminating your name that he lied to the supervisor about contact with the client my concern is whether that is the case whether in which i was told the client cleaned i hadn't called them there's no instance where i said oh i had called them and then reversed myself and said oh you know what liz leigh i had i did not honor i would say no no at this stage of the proceeding i would submit your honor that the lack of that particular piece of evidence merely contributes to the fact that there is an issue in dispute ok so that's that's why you think that the can't be decided scenario you have two people who have the conversation well although your honor i would say that the issue really has as much to do with the fact that two people had this conversation no one else was present his l sorry i did not actually call this person back ms sharkey for her part on eight ninety nine says i told my supervisor yes i'd spoken to this client several times and there was no conversation to the effect unfortunately was not discussed at all argument the oral argument stop although judge freeh did inquire about it mr hughes not confronted with this reason at her terminations and said she was given a very explanation there was a either a loss of confidence r temporal proximity is very close the manager t incident that we've been discussing is denied and false her performance was good there was an e mail from the higher ups that showed animists in the week before that recommendation because remember these conversations have been ongoing and they backed out of the finally and i'll sit down others who have you can gauge in alleged will confirmed dishonesty were not fired here making client lied about my contact you're going to have a very difficult time all right thank you let's hear from your adversary any protected activity but assuming that there was wasn't a factor in j p morgan's decision to terminate this plaintiff judge sweet looked at that twice on summary judgment and both times he looked at the record and decided that there was no evidence that it was a factor and i think it's important to look at that record because it's an undisputed record first of all the decision to terminate the plaintiff was made by multiple employees at j p morgan chase this is undisputed it was made by the plaintiff's immediate supervisor miss lassiter it was made by miss last sitters immediate supervisor mr green it was made by mr green's immediate supervisor mr kenny folks the fo question i asked her this so you don't recall missed last letter telling you that the client representative we've called manager t was unhappy because she was unable to contact you is that fair her answer i don't recall at this time that exchange no and then to go to judge droney is point which is what was said to her when she was being terminated by the h r manager this isn't the confidential appendix at page seven forty eight and this is the deposition r manager and he's asked i believe this is by plaintiff's counsel and what was said in that meeting answer so jennifer was very emotional she was crying she was sort of distracted she was texting on her personal phone for most of the entire meeting actually she remarked like she didn't know how she was going to tell her dad about this and here's the important part and then we talked briefly through this i don't want to say the client's name in the public record through the client the line kind of situation and the back and forth interestingly she never denied or question the whole alleged lying incident back and forth she that was the issue that leslie had talked her through she says she recalls this last year and leslie asked me had i ever spoken to this client and i said yes and i don't recall leslie saying that i didn't that the client had never heard from me so the point is not what the client said it's what mrs sharkey is saying she said and she's saying i said to them that i had spoken to the client yes i did now if that's true and the client is either false or mistake some point but we're talking about a specific incident on a specific date unless we last or we got a call from a client and said where is jennifer sharkey she's a phantom i can't get in touch with her and on that incident she d the employee lied she's an at will employee they can terminate her for that on the heels of performance related problems don't disagree with that but buck if the horn of the belief that she lied is contradicted this is is not supported by the evidence and it is just contradicted by her custom then and then you know that's a question from the jury but but but but so we have to look at is why is whether she spoke to the client or not and in any evidence saw we don't have any evidence from the client saying indeed mr sharkey didn't call me or didn't answer my calls or yes that's exactly what i told miss sharp so we have we have goods in the conversation giving different accounts right but at the end of the day years we cited these cases that say courts are not going to be super h r departments in situations like this all that matters is that we believe that the that the that there was li and and that there's no proof that that that any question to law chase actually believe no there's no question fact of what she's believed they believe that she had lied to them for that it's the it's the testimony of their employees i as to their belief we are if it's disbelieve because they haven't put anything from the client they believed it based on what they say the client tell there's no just ask you about the sequence food seems to be a big deal from the point presentation that she suggests that she said client should be terminated at the end of july and it was only a few days later august fifth that she was terminated you know raises a question about whether that was the real reason that she was terminated that this was an important client with some questionable feelings and she raised and then sending this july twenty fourth two thousand and nine e mail on the other hand the plaintiff testified at her deposition implant and this is that in the appendix eight ninety two to date ninety three and the plaintiffs repeat at page twelve that she had been blowing the whistle for months before she was terminated and it's crystal clear that that's the position they're taking now in the meantime during those months she was having appendix at six seventy four what she says is two things she says i feel uncomfortable about this client and the second thing she says is i think that the private wealth management business should separate from this client and we should be sensitive because other lines of business at j p morgan may want to continue doing business with them if she really believed that there was a crime or a fraud afoot would she really be saying well i don't want to do business with them but these other departments at j p morgan can that's absolutely implausible if you want to think about whether she really reasonably believed that something that a crime was being committed she wouldn't be making that recommendation and that but at the end of the day your honor the decision makers on terminating miss sharkey they were all the post every one of them said in those deliberations it was never a discussion about client a there was never a discussion about any suppose whistleblowing activity the only thing that they and that's unrebutted the only thing that was discussed was the fact that she had a history of various performance problems and at the end of the day she ends up lying to her immediate supervisor which is grounds for termination is not a single piece of evidence nothing that says in those deliberations and they took the depositions that this client it was never discussed in fact three of those decision makers there's not a shred of evidence that they don't even heard of these claims about client at the time they decided to terminate her and that's the end of this case that's a has that fact has never changed from day one they've been litigating it for six years they lost in front of osha they lost twice in summary judgment in front of judge suite and frankly it's time to put an end to this case your honor i see my time is up unless you have some more questions i will i will rest on papers thank you your honor with respect to the other employees in dishonesty and yet were not fired for the court to appendix page eleven sixty eight also pages  seven ninety two and indeed your honor pointed her self was able to give one very specific example in which a coworker did in fact lie to ms sharkey and other team members stating that client who after all she's she's representing she thinks may be involved in your according to your presentation illegal activity on think there's a jury on are not going to find that they had grounds fired so so you know honor ok yes the if not enough not enough though to have to post a client to to have to testify as to whether or not your client spoke with them or not or whether they ever complained about her failure to contact them or anything like that all right we did oppose the primary climate is she wrong or understood that that obviously one man always goes back and says you know we could have taken one more deposition but the square issue here is that conversation between  evidence to contradict the fens assertion that they believe she was yes a short for that point judge should i would defer to the point that was that was made by a member of the penalty earlier which is that ms lasser is the one telling the story to the extent that she's massaging this this this conversation with ms sharkey she can't believe her own story and the fact is that it is fruit of the poisoned tree the fact that if animists or retaliatory conduct  while your honor the the fifth and the fact is that the it does present a square issue of fact that can't be as accepted as undisputed this sharkey unequivocally denied this the court pointed it out at three forty three also at three forty four and it eight ninety nine the client unequivocally says no this is what i told my supervisor i did not say one thing and then backtrack that did not happen thank you very much thank you