next case for argument this morning is flanagan against the office of the chief  court your honor finers this case involves the facts of this case involves the grief just circumstances though the questions involved are not necessarily agree just in particularly the what some of the most the most egregious facts were a murder plot that ended unsuccessful in two thousand and eight where a supervisor named philip why the lies and failed in his attempt to carry out a murder plot against my client kim flanagan for purposes of oral argument in the limited of time we have i'd like to focus on one claim the retaliation claim in the complaint these this question you know is not necessarily difficult to resolve it's merely whether there was kind docs by the defendant that what persuaded a reasonable person from pursuing protected kind of conduct in the future here at the lower court decided in the negative and the argument that they sufficiently harsh for a variety of reasons i think that this analysis was incorrect it's far is the hearsay argument  concerned the one of the main obstacles that the court put forth was hurt my client's knowledge that when she entered the building where the attempted murder occurred she knew that there was going to be in fact a murder and the she had learned this knowledge from a coworker another officer officer anderson who indicated that she overheard a conversation between the wise and and another coworker planning to harm miss flanagan i think that this can come under the exception of the hearsay rule for a couple of different reasons first of all when it was when the conversation was relayed to my client it's certainly relevant for purposes of her state of mind and also the conversation between it doesn't terms of whether or not that actual threat is admissible for purposes of showing how does that have anything to do with the hearsay rule whether or not the threat was made known whether or not the threat was is admissible and i'm not i know you believe that but you need to provide legal authority right so and my are you make an argument that that's the reason why it's admissible and so i'm saying what does that have declaration against a party interest and i know he wasn't saying it in and behalf of the employers but he was a supervisor an aide and an agent of the employers of his employers so under those circumstances i think than the statement could be imputed in that they would be to the employers and they be responsible for that for that comment is there some decision you're relying on for this and in the context of retaliation claims there is some question as to whether or not that if the actors a question were supervisors but i don't think that that c resolved in the summary judgment stage i think it was a question of fact because there were certain acts taken by mr weiss and that indicate he was in fact a supervisor such as directing seen my client certain circumstances and particularly the night of the murder plot i think to write that i have a hard time grasping  credulity that the various actions taken against miss flanagan were not sufficiently harsh i would think a failed murder plot and that threat there i would be sufficiently harsh to and regarding the purse suits that she had filed that indicate that there was a motive for harming her because of the pursuit of those protected activities in one instance while he was walking by her he said that there she goes again with a new i think charge and another occasion he screamed at her saying in your presence rather saying she was he was sick of everybody in these fucking lawsuits now i would argue that those two statements taking in context with one another if you know like most reasonable like to the ny movement would argue that you did intend that the motive to harm or for a protected activity also there was nothing in the record to create a genuine issue of material fact just one thing i wanted to raise your honor is that in the police reply brief plaintiff asked for the first very first time to add a nine hundred eighty three claim  raise it in the opening brief on the appeal as for the first incident judge what counsel refers to as a murder plot that occurred on march thirteenth two thousand and eight there was absolutely no plaintive most of the night she waited by herself downstairs outside of the building she had enough time to call her friend officer burton her attorney the u s marshals and the f b i after quite some time everybody came  downstairs and exit the building plaintive refused to exit out that door she walked away and as she went home there was no adverse employment action no one touched her no one threatened her and that most of the night she was outside be the april first two thousand and eight charge because obviously this incident occurred before she filed the charge she provides no evidence that this incident occurred because of her lawsuits other than mr of the ways on a general statement about  lawsuits sometime after may fourteenth two thousand and eight but during her deposition plaintiff admitted that she didn't know who this comment was directed to she admitted that there were several employees who had filed lawsuits and that she admitted that mr just briefly touching on those statements that were excluded properly there was no abuse of discretion in terms of the cheryl anderson statement the statement by alleged statement by mr boies on and ms  matters outside of their scope of their employment so they're not admission against party opponent under eighty one to two also they do not show that to clarence then state of mind other eight zero three three those eight zero three three statements must be contemporaneous her deposition that she said quote you're not talking that plaintive said to boyd destroys on quote you're not talking to me you need to get away from me you can't do anything to me plaintive claimed that boys and allegedly said quote i could do whatever i want to i could be you and the what he would give a fuck boys on at that point loved and played have called the chicago police department again and this incident no one touched plaited no want took any disciplinary actions against or played to argue back and i think laid at the situation by refusing to talk to mr boyd on there was clearly regarding the murder part counsel just said that there was no threats made towards miss flanagan and that's actually not the case especially when you're said opposing counsel so there was no evidence of a connection between the adverse acts and the legal protected activity and that's not the case because not only did she says did he say once generally speaking that that he attacked fucking lawsuits he also said it to her while he was walking past her and he said there she