what's important is that we did not receive a response from the court during this entire period of time that's sort of puzzles me because the discovery cutoff date was in october long after the the summary judgment motion was noted so discovery obviously continued there are a couple depositions it were taken in august and what you told the court in like in january late december certainly looking you know looking at it from a monday morning quarterback position of course that's exactly what we should have done and what we could have done have that information if i do have those names and i understand your question and we have that whole council will all attempt to supplement that with you but certainly with regards to the the the case she suffered an adverse employment action this court ruled that for the most part when you present circumstantial evidence it should be substantial  created an issue a question of fact for the jury to consider now you know obviously when you look at had various decisions made even more recent  that it should be sufficient but at the same time if we have direct evidence then it means not the rise to it to a great level that doesn't necessarily apply in this case this case is more of a mixed motives case whereby you have the employer stating that she performed poorly and that's why she was terminated and are to part what we're arguing is that there is sufficient evidence to create a tribal issue a question of fact f to try to overcome and prove that there is a issue of fact to the issue that some federal courts lower federal courts are having are struggling with is that they're making credibility issues in some record that she was treated differently then the court basically says well we believe the employer we don't believe the employee but what you're saying i can hear is that she didn't have to just she didn't really have to just  questions that surrounded her leaving the job the you know you have he said basically they said she said they said you know she said that she was fired and she had conversations with h r and with the director to that effect the company initially indicated that she resigned but later admitted that she was terminated as though on those kinds of issues the circumstances create at least an inference of bias along with the with the fact that you know every time money was missing somewhere the first person lead asked would be her you know anytime someone had a problem with a resident they complained to her and i think that the court when looking at the tot they didn't investigate the matter he told her she could come back and pick up her things and and terminated her so those type of situations where investigation  pretext and this court has explained that what that means is in the context of rule fifty six not in the context of title seven certainly circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a title seven way i read the decision that whether it's just circumstantial evidence whether it's direct evidence or strong evidence pretext was either stablished but whether the court did or not in this case  have exactly the opposite it was only one other individual who was accused of the same type of conduct for over emotional abuse and granted this person wasn't an employee because she was a private caregiver these people can have private investigated and what she said was can i come by and pick up my things now it's the mormon church that has a resignation good bad or indifferent and i'm still investigated i don't think that some evidence of a pretext and i understand that can be circumstantial evidence but that requires one of two things either that the explanation is unworthy of belief or that discrimination more likely motivated the employer occurred two years before the germination and we've submitted the entire investigation there were scores of people interviewed everybody who had access to those two cartridges were interviewed and in fact it was never resolved nobody was disciplined including plaintiffs and what they did was change the medication procedures to make sure that medication wouldn't go missing nobody was disciplined for it the scores of people were interviewed the fact that one or two may or may not and the explanation for that for example nancy mormons but that she resigned but in any event it's immaterial the interview doesn't change anything we expect that she's going to deny it you can't not take act you cannot coerce residents you cannot intimidate residents i mean some of these people made statements such as you know when she talked spoke to me i just cowered others said when i asked for help in my room she told me  she yelled at me to just stay in my room these are not there is no explanation and she can deny it she can say well i had a bad day she can say a number of different things but you can't tolerate abuse the system living a reasonable inference from the complaint that when they found any excuse to terminate her took advantage of it being contrary to washington public policy which protects specifically but even if you get that far you still have to show cause they showed that that was the reason she was fired and thirty after so that the defendant is not able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal which is here thirty three questions but they were investigated by nancy more men and she took action you still have to prove that this is somehow this course of complaint she was never disciplined for the complaints nothing ever happens against her about the complaint plaintiff has the burden of showing that that's just creature xed usually can show that by something like well somebody else did the same thing like thing happened but these are meetings that these people have to get together and say ok what are some of the problems we have so and so this happened  complaints i forget which one was about a month before some of the complaints were up to two and a half years before and every time you have a staff meeting there's going to be some complaints about something that the refrigerator wasn't clean the for termination violation of public policy you have to have a statutorily protected activity filing a work comp claim statute protects you reporting abuse statute protects you and there's a multitude of other issues you're protected by  prove that the terminations for the verbal abuse was pretextual and that it was there's a cause ation on it because she complained that the coffee filter had modern it she was fired frankly i don't say you know that part whenever you  situations there is a certain amount of factual way for the simple reason that the ultimate burden in summary judgment is you have reasonable minds can differ then we win so i mean certainly there's a september and so we try to do some discovery during the time we were doing discovery the court could have made a ruling on the summary judgment at any time if it wasn't until we were right on top of the hearing past the thanksgiving holidays past the christmas