so called job duties exception and so naturally said that there is no such thing as a job to the succession harrison court relied entirely on this job duties this exception that was  describes all of the protected activity they're housekeepers they're not human resources professionals they're clearly was sexually harassed there's no dispute about that by the way they report that to the general manager  employer felons leaving why would that show that they oppose their employer they were reporting what they believe to be unlawful conduct which is sexual harassment that's the whistleblowers act i mean rights act which is more about the title seven is the senate it's a little bit of a different standard saying opposition because they both went with her they both took statements they broke statements they didn't have too big they traded material say all you have to do is pass it along to the right person they did far more than that they went met several times they reported this extent which is seems pretty clear that the lower court relied on winslow's so called job duties task it's clear that it's analysis was erroneous but commission is here today to address the court's further er they don't defer to federal law and in this case means stand alone and tired tally act applies to any person it is found in the miscellaneous section of the main rights act not in the employment said to the extent that i'm not particularly relevant anymore i will see it the rest of my time back to mr quinn for a battle if that's permitted it i'm happy to answer any questions you might have if you because he applied the correct analysis we all know now that there is no such thing as a job duties exception and i'm not going to talk any more about the job duties exception because his analysis of the underlying facts are accurate and the facts in the record show that there is no dispute a fact about whether the plaintiffs think used and protected activity so post here is that the question in this case is very simple did any of the several things that miss pipkin and miss parker do constitute protected opposition and i'll submit to you that they did don't if you look closely if you strip the facts from the characterizations of whistle blowing up posing  advocating one of the plaintiffs did in this case was report the facts to management whether those were required by their job or whether they were assisting martin in bringing her claim forward the question is not whether they assisted martin but whether they opposed what they did specifically was accompanying martin when she requested that they do so and stand by wal mart who reported her complaint of harassment to the manager they submitted written statements at the express request of the employer that's undisputed they participated in interviews in the they participated in the investigation at the express direction of their employer that's undisputed parker wrote out a statement for martin in martin's voice in third person i then martin's voice and rode away on the statement that her purpose in doing that was that martin did not speak or read english very well after the investigation they each backed still letter to human resources reporting facts related to them by subordinate employees who were disgruntled about the investigation and in none of those actions that i just went through did either pippin or parker express an opinion about the merits of martin's harassment complaint or complained that sunburst was not responding quickly enough or appropriately including when they were passing along subordinates complaints about the actual investigation when you look at what they submitted it is purely a reporting of facts relate to them could move the jury to conclude are just if you jury infer from the fact that they continued to press the case after the fact so what is the unlawful employment practice here we have a coworker who made inappropriate remarks to another coworker and employer that did they do anything mark they assisted martin they did each of those steps that i watched through our position is not that their that their actions are unprotected and protected because they were required by their job to do them a position is that their actions unprotected because they are opposition at most they begin characterized as assistance in meeting with rights act like title seven protects both the opposition and assistance however there's a difference those two harrison both of those cases say that what is protected by the main whistleblower protection act is whistle blowing and that's getting back to the move to expose some illegality it's whistleblowing that's protected it's not the conveyance of information that's protected so the question is whether they were blowing the whistle in this case or whether they were keeping their keeping management informed and there's an important principle when i called the second round of connelly has reported to us that there are unhappy with the investigation in the way and proceeded and at the end of one of the letters it reads i'll keep you posted in other words i'm your eyes and ears and it makes perfect sense that they would not go to of well this again this is a month after the investigation which is way back to that what's the a lawful employment practice point but yes that is what it says again reporting a complaint of what i guess find that holds that come dating information i complain of a subordinate up the chain constitutes protected activity even when it's not required exactly absolutely employer is liable if the supervisor is on notice and doesn't speak up so when a supervisor is reporting information whether they've been trained to you know you must report harassment complaints or whether they're passing along when wings of subordinates who don't feel something is fair when they're passing along information to upper management or h r for purposes of the knesset using their necessarily aligned with absolute some evidence that they're not aligned and i'm not advocating that these  one responsible for disciplining crabtree does that answer your question that the concern is that if any passing along here we can being of information constitutes protected activity employers hands are incredibly tied when it comes to managing the workforce there needs to be something in the communication to put the employer on notice that this employee is adverse is oppositional otherwise you know these  agreed we are opposed absolutely not something some indication that they're registering a personal complaint in the weekend when we believe it was colossal which is the first circuit opinion that was as simple as this is a very serious case that you need to take you need to take seriously in this case all of the evidence shows that they were passing on information to arm their employer that they were aligned with the purpose of preventing allowing the employer to escape liability for harassment to report and on april twenty fourth that is what they were directed to do here is what happened and that's the end of it and as i think all the judges have noted that that didn't happen they continue to report that is just running up the five hole is completely consistent with the record and it should be up to the jury to decide in fact all of the arguments that the defense makes go to causation not to th day in court clearly it is relying on this job duties exception that was rejected in harrison and based on the facts based on harrison is willing clarification and based on the fact that there are a number of disputed issues this case should go to a jury summary judgment should be reversed and this can should be remanded for trial not for for the proceedings thank you