you counsel yours this case is simple and complicated the same time we believe that we have shown at the summary judgment stage that there were significant questions of fact and circumstantial evidence that indicated a number of different facts in this matter the case involves a lady who has been an f a a contract employee for over thirty years never had any prior disciplinary actions support for her family and like which she did and never had any disciplinary issues taken against her and her personality is the type that she would never ever raise or always do anything that was aggressive and yet always on when they had to switch over with the tribe taking over then she became a coworker became her supervisor and things went downhill from there one of the issues i think that cites this case is that they claimed they did investigation and what we're trying who's point out the problems with the investigation it was not properly done and let me ask each year your claim that it wasn't properly done seems to be based primarily on the amount of time it took to do it i don't see anywhere where you've pointed to other witnesses that should have been interviewed or other documents that should have been reviewed is there something there lemonick had to thor to take her at bat and she would even her supervisor and there's no indication that they had such authority the other issue what was is that they didn't talk to anybody else and if you look at the statement at  their document when ninety two they submitted in there they talk about conrad enos who is her friend also a black employee who is a supervisor not was her supervisor well the minute that he doesn't pay action on her they recommending actually against him for not much she comes back to him explains what happened down there they jump on him for her allowing or not backing them up or picking her badge or doing something that rendition in the self seems pretty weird all all within a day i mean this happened at one o'clock or one hundred and thirty in the afternoon this all came down she wasn't but if i understand it there was an incident of included the witness to that the perch and the two people that were in the conversation i mean if the if the issue is what happening during that alleged incident of in nation who asked you have to talk to admitted she went in or took this document in there but you know as i said about the investigation if you look at the page three hundred we add again what the responsibilities of c eye on these investigations and i don't see an odd page three hundred says human resources department will one review the situation to schedule a meeting between the employee the supervisor or manager in department head and if the issue targeted so she brought it down to mister lemon chicken at that point in time there was two other people in there and they turned around got up and walked out when mrs lennox started yelling a take a thirty year employee who's never been disciplined in kind of serious discipline and she's running afoul right now with ms lam acheck who is going over and above her authority she treats mr enos as though they should have been interviewed and been part of this this policy in sweden listed all these policies for as sai seat and how they treat their employees in the integrity that they work these things with in the value what we showed in their ten k issue was that they want these people to stay on that have institutional knowledge longstanding history that helps keep this facility functioning and when this basic higher donek they were there the st thing s a i c was they're telling her she's going to be here comment about the police shooting do you point to any other avenue ends of racial animus on the part of ms lam an act there was a yes because what and where is it because i haven't found it in your employee was given three times to pass the test multiple times in the past history her testimony was that those people get passed more than once and by didn't don't file find that in in no that's in there but there's also the responses that that or not they don't care whether or not you have multiple opportunities has now given them over the history have we resent her testimony over the history they allow them multiple times to perform this pass it's a pass fail when she finally gets a training the question is whether myspace or not would raise her voice i mean that's not in her personality and that's where we think a jury could decide whether or not they would believe her side of the story versus sandy lemonick side story and that's where it stops well you have m identifier there wasn't any affidavit from him is a some notes he supposedly talked to a we did believe that was even admissible because that was just the statements part of the investigation but they only talk to them did they talk to conrad enos about her history and whether what she actually said there's no statement from congressman except the little briefing that they said that she came up here and said this and she don't understand why the lady was yelling her and they then a deaf i were going to punish her for not doing something different so i mean there are another black employee who's been there much longer than sandy lemonick there jumped on  adeline and screaming at her supervisor are and you know we we aren't the h r department the issue for us is is whether you've shown us anything to suggest that they didn't reasonably believe that they didn't believe that because if they believed it then they have the right to discipline as a result of it right leverage to discipline we're not going to challenge that but under the years in their their policy their own policies and the policies of sai seat is that the discipline should be reasonable progressive and look into it you know my experience with h r partment usually go outside when on the th they run through this and quickly go through it they don't holler and they don't talk to it they don't sit down and say what was the resolution how did this come about there's nobody at the f f i talked to were this piece of paper come from because the issue that i think she was concerned with zanny brought this piece of paper up when it was congress for it was not her for it was his for social brings it up and gives it to him and he gives it to was basically and she says this is wrong and she goes down to give your honor this case can be summed up easily as a case of unsupported speculation the case involves a two year employee at sea and i who claimed she was subjected to a hostile work environment claim based on a single comment by a single supervisor sandy lam an act she also claims her terminations was racially motivated by this supervisor who was indisputably not the decision decision maker in her terminations the most direct response today that i appellant has not provided the court with any legal authority or any facts in the record that support the fact that they are relevant to this case the other arguments the appellant makes are equity arguments arguments related to the appellant alleged past performance her financial condition her mental state her personality these equity arguments are not proof of pretext and they also are not proof of any sort of employee then you could argue that something else is going on here could you if that were the case but that's not the case here because ms basi the appellant one was not a thirty year employees she policies that state that you can't be terminated on a st infraction denies policy allows for the terminations based on insubordinate conduct there's not a measured system that requires a certain number of policy in violations in order to be terminated and has not produced any evidence of that why is there not a genuine issue them through the fact on who was yelling that's a good question your honor and when it comes to who is yelling for the purposes of the motion for summary judgment you can infer that it was that of the appellant's interpretation of what happened that she was not yelling you can assume that to be true but that doesn't matter that that and of itself that alleged false accusation of her yelling is not what creates pretext it's about what facts the decision makers had and whether or not based on those facts they honestly arrived at the conclusion they did that it was ms basically the appellant who is the one yelling that day here when we look at the investigation that was conducted it was an investigation that included three supervisor mr n s and mr y mr n s and mr wives were did offer statements about all of things all of the things that the a talent is supposedly concerned about about the form and where i fact she even admitted in her deposition that that form was actually originated by an f a a i c instructor it was constructive criticism given to her r p o trainee that doesn't get placed in the personnel file doesn't affect anyone pay salaries or benefits for whatever reason she was upset about the form and even though and this told hutton that she that he had informed her that this was from mark and that she said i was going to somehow two other witnesses in the room the reason why he had power and never names who those witnesses are because the appellant has no idea though that's not in the evidence it's not in the record of and sears no evidence that anyone else was there or should have been there or should have been questioned and this court is not required to question to question the the adequacy of this investigation the court is here very similar in fact to the kendrick the penske case which was a case of an african american truck driver who was accused of speeding who later had a confrontation with a supervisor and a supervisor claimed that he was shoved and yelled at and that and the th circuit in that case looked at that accusation of shoving and yelling and said ok we're going to look at that and presume that the truck driver's assertion is correct he did not show up and yell at the supervisor but that point of fact didn't matter at that point a fact was not the dispositive issue dispositive issue was what were the facts that led to that conclusion and that h r investigator took the statement of the supervisor who claimed to be show as well as two outside supervisors who had observed the incident interestingly enough that h r investigator did not have the statement of the the plaintiffs in that case partly because the plaintiff didn't offer it but even so that one sided investigation that the plaintiff argued not to get in his opinion not getting other outside opinions was still sufficient for the th circuit to find that that the h r investigator in that case had honestly arrived at his inclusion and here the same is true the appellant has not offered any facts to make it make it even to even suggest that somehow the that sean wise the once the person on the phone had any harbored any ill will towards her her admissions are found at one hundred and fifty six dollars of the record and one hundred and forty eight dollars of the records and when it comes to racial at all or any sort of racially discriminatory oppressive environment that she allegedly suffered from this all come down to one comment and she admits she knows of no other comment one comment in the record by his women act c and i doesn't dispute that it occurred it occurred but how it's connected to her terminations appellant makes no case for a ballot offer identifies no compared or identify no other african american employees who are allegedly discriminated against who suffered adverse employment action there's literally one great allegedly racist comment and then an event and event that was opinions opinions completely unsupported by the record and for those reasons unless the court has any other questions and i'm going to complete my remarks today zero activity because she believed that to be a way it lacked female new employee he was being harassed and she went down to confront and he lemonick who was the basis of this this for her she brought it up all she said to degenerate you are this eunuch ated there was something wrong with the way she did that the other problem that we were showing and i tell you stand there and you can you say that again miss lamb are nothing to do with the form that was fil