with the issue upon which the motion was made that it therefore triggers our obligation to come forward with evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of the churchill fact on causation we did this in part by showing temporal proximity the district court disregarded that citing a seven circuit case that said you can't use temple proximity alone to create an inference and also noted that there was a time lag between the time you took out some relieve in october november of particular investigation had concluded and it costs alter the court noted this patent this court noted that the savvy employer will possibly delay meeting out of just a plane in order to create a temporal gap to diminish that inference here it fails because the june one thousand nine hundred nine suspension is based upon an investigation that was concluded in january of one thousand nine hundred nine and there's no explanation in the record for that leave when he was told we can file your rights all we want that's a very short gap of time so therefore there is temporal proximity sufficient to create a reasonable inference of a causal connection how does that connect up with the with the subsequent x it does in a subject matter type of way because by the district court's going to pinion the terminations was based upon a series of suspensions and reprimands and that includes necessarily this reprimand we're talking about and the suspension that goes with it therefore by the district court's own logic and by the defendant's own logic there is a subject matter connection relating all the way back to january of one thousand nine hundred nine therefore we establish a causal connection a genuine issue of material fact with temper proximity and subject matter connected in this time the threat of time together from one thousand nine hundred eight all the way until the termination in november of two thousand and one now ordinarily the next question would be has the employer come forward and produced evidence sufficient to say there's a legitimate non retaliatory reason but the employer did not put that forward specifically in the motion the employer did not  assert that the employer asserted cause of connection was the issue upon which it was seeking rules if that's really not that it had a legitimate not discriminatory not retaliate or reason nevertheless we address the employer's rationale and we pointed out to the district court the evidence which demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact there this is where the district court when i arrived because the district court conflict it instigated thanks given the volume of suspensions and reprimand is clear that the city had a legitimate interest in terminating the plaintiffs and that does a disservice your honour's to our case on the number of you this court should look at the record and analyze more carefully are showing a pretext but before we even get to pretext don't we have evidence of direct direct evidence of discriminatory intent which under reach it's by summary judgment regardless of whether we show pretext or not we have the statement we can violate your rights all we want in close proximity to his having taken leave and then the ensuing events so we submit that's directive and it's even if that isn't direct evidence we've shown in terms of pretext that there's a genuine issue of material fact on the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason with respect to the inmate tips without going to the supervisor considering that evidence in the light most favorable to mr xanax and there is an issue of fact for trial and that suspension and whether or not it's valid with respect to all of these that he didn't agree they make a great point of that but i don't know where it says you have to grieve in order to contest the merits of the discipline on a motion for summary judgment in a civil rights case is your argument then boiled down to the notion that because of the statement that was supposedly made in january anything that any disciplinary action taken there after for some period of time is inherently suspect and therefore that's enough to get well i think it is your hon for the reasons i stated in terms of the connectedness by subject matter in other words instead of looking from that day forward go back to the termination and look backward in time and you see that the employer's own rationale links that by subject matter if the first one hadn't polygraph that's when the day he's back to work he's called on the carpet for not going to the polygraph that was canceled by the police were for so to answer your question further the showing of pretext plus the direct evidence i've discussed also supplies the evidence sufficient for reasonable fact finder to conclude that there's a connection if you know there was a showing a pretext is that it's a discrimination with respect to the second automobile accident remember they said there were three well the third one or the second one was not a subject of discipline therefore should not be considered the first one is where he hit the rock in the road and i believe that was in november of two thousand and the transcript from the unemployment security hearing that's in the record part of our excerpt unobjective two below demonstrates that the lieutenant herself testified that there's a one year rule in other words if you're going to look at accidents as a basis for discipline or anything you can't go back more than a year and the problem for the for the employer here is they went back more than a year in november of two thousand and one they looked at accidents that happened more than a year before and if you look at the transcript you'll see exactly what we're talking about how i got that admission out of the loop lieutenant most of this testimony so those accidents can't play any role in the decision to terminate at least there's an issue of fact as to whether or not that's a legitimate basis for the  termination the third accident again we have the one year rule that's been violated i think another important fact is that just prior to this now this was in november of two thousand and one in august of two thousand and one the most recent thing about driving th happened his supervisor who's aware of these prior accidents gives them a standard rating honest performance evaluation for driving a standard i think that's an important fact the other thing i think is important is that same supervisor investigated and responded to this very thorough accident that led to extermination and he testified actually the record for fifteen he testified that he did not think that that accident was a basis for terminations the other issue is that he tried to influence the statement of one of the witnesses to that accident but again considering the evidence in the light most favorable to us is there not an issue of fact when we look at an h p requested him to get that statement the internet itself the obtaining of the statement apart from the other accidents which can't be considered anyway we maintain but apart from that the obtaining of the statement in and of itself is not terminable according to the lieutenant that's an ex record three fifty one the supervisor himself questioned the credibility of that witness when he investigated the supervisor conducted the investigation for the department of the senate going to the witness and getting the statement and he question her credibility and i asked him well did that make you question everything she said and he said yes and that's excerpt a record for nineteen for twenty years i know you're going to go through but you're going to run out your clock if you're going to go through the record all right statement that we have the shifting reasons the reason in writing for the terminations is that he failed to appear at the pre term anation hearing and that's proven at a supermarket three sixty nine so we have another reason it's the accidents is it the witness or is it t retaliatory retaliation on behalf of carson city and the reason the district court found that way was because it reviewed misters and next personnel file which showed a significant number of the sheriff's department that he was going to need to leave and i think it's important to remember too mr zinni it only took one month of leave under us that my way so it wasn't a huge amount of time there was no reason for the sheriff's department to even be concerned conversation with an inmate at the carson city sheriff's department an inmate he was supervising he started to ask her about dirty cops within the department she went along with this conversation because she knew that she was getting cigarettes and lighters in exchange for information that she really had knew nothing about then an outside agency to present to the sheriff's department wasn't even the agency that investigated his conduct was called in in september of  orders and one of which was a very serious violation that wasn't it was the fact and this is what got misters in it in trouble all along that she investigated things outside of his regular duty without notifying his supervisor was terminated not only for his third on mobile accident but also for investigating activities not a not a part of his regular duties without notifying his supervisors were do we make the statement find that statement was true i still don't think because the investigation into mr cynic's conduct hadn't been concluded yet that there were any violations of any general orders at that point in time does it create a tribal issue though have anything to do with the having taken leave but how do we resolve that as a matter of summary judgment as opposed to a jury question but i think the district court resolved it by finding that there was no evidence that the sheriff even made that statement and even if he had made that statement there's no evidence to support the conclusion that mr singh it's right for violated because he took leave the city supported its position based on the fact that mr daniel had a long three motor vehicle accidents he and another thing to this isn't the sheriff saying this was in new york you came back from leave your shoes are shined or misters and you know your uniform isn't pressed these are serious violations of general orders that he's been warned about ninety eight in april of two thousand there are eight documented driving problems that mr zinni caswell in the field training officer program he's warned that if he doesn't correct his driving he's going to be transferred back to the jail they even asked can you go see an eye and eye doctor which he does and the physician says i don't see anything wrong with your eyes yet in november of two thousand is mr dickerson pointed out t he's told that people are placing large objects in the middle of the roadway he admits that he wasn't looking in the middle of the roadway when he went to this car and he had a large object he stated i was shining my spotlight over to the left side of the road notifying his supervisor that he was doing this he claims he was doing it to use them as informants he didn't cattle catalog them as informants the sheriff's department once again didn't know he was doing these investigations because he didn't notify supervisor and so he  twenty day suspension for again violating general orders one of which is investigating duties which are not part of your regular job without notifying your supervisor then in april of two thousand and one i believe  car while on duty he wasn't suspended for that he actually didn't receive any discipline and then in november of two thousand and one a short time after the april accident mr isn't yet well on duty fails to yield the right of way in an intersection causing an accident and the accident alone and i and i have to go back one second and the rules clearly state that if the accidents occur within eighteen months not twelve months but eighteen months within that time period you are subject to suspension or trauma nation but it wasn't merely the accident alone that caused misters in your extermination it was the fact that he went out and investigated his own accident even if it's somewhere in eighteen months there it's twelve months that creates an issue of fact considering that must be real to us i don't have anything to add other to my ask the court threw up please reversed and remanded with instructions for further proceedings  ok the next case on calendar is follow versus greyhound lines which has been submitted therefore we'll call sulphur versus washington township