respects as required by law the oral argument this morning i would like to to start with the christopher case and correct mr bronson statements and criticisms about the lower articulated under christopher under the scant case that i'll come back to under any of them the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of the summary judgment finding in  ron it was the defendant and the christopher case and not the plaintiffs employer who made the decision that prevented the planet from continuing her employment with the fact that of an important well i thought i think the differences between the cases that have been spoken about this morning factually are are are employees that she was frustrated by in terms of their lack of cooperation when she was attempting to look into an allegation of harassment by  ms to be a good fit for her facility back to reliance and quality care with with no hesitation both say it was reliance decision to remove her from the workplace and i told her let me ask a question at this point did reliance removing her from quality care terminate her  in her relationship with reliant did she have any did she have any right to determine where she would be working in other words that  could she demand from replying when she was working with them and make and keep its discomforts could she have said no no i'm not going to her i want to be placed in some other place if you don't that's an adverse employment action t i don't think the record has any evidence of her right to decline the placement here or anywhere else i don't think that's in the record whatsoever reliance had relationships with other health care facilities and and what is in the record is that there was an opportunity that was provided to the nether e to transfer to another want to silicon and she didn't want that transfer because it was further from her home and ultimately that led to those parties found world out in agreement so i was there for us no go ahead i have to thank you i have two questions based on that question number one is i thought i read in the record it was pretty far and she would have to move and then question number two is if that's the case how do you deal with the i don't think we we have to consider and i think there were several i think the rector's player but there were there were several opportunities presented to him in the discussions between reliance and yes it's it is if if the defendant or the representative from reliant miss gorgeous was very clear on on this point that she she  she says it was too far that was a decline and then ultimately they worked out a neutral settlement agreement with what would be an interesting situation employees that you expressed frustration about faulty care had no contractual ability did anything about that and that's what's so significant between the difference in our case and  and i would like to distinguish all of that the factual differences between scans in this case in the van schaik case actually had i thin the difference between stance and the facts of this case are significant overwhelming you want to try to actually two questions one is it determining whether someone is a joint there was no history and i'm glad i don't i don't understand it isn't evidence it to agent statement why wouldn't it be evidence it would be circumstantial evidence or maybe it's not quote unquote undisputed lady that quality of care did not make the decision at issue here and all of the ways in which row i controlled every single aspect of the terms and conditions of weighed against both reliance and quality care saying she did not make the decision we made the decision that the fact is separation and this you know straight remark or comment about ok let me make it let me make it really clear the person who's now in charge i think that statement would be time to envision the hypothetical so some therapist lost her job for whatever reason and we have this calm that that the quality care new supervisor has an event that he is now expressed about women in general i would think it would be like any other well i think it would certainly be closer toward to satisfy and the effects employment standard then it would be be the articulation of the elements that go into the common law factors that are set forth in the in the more recent cases like the shock you can if you give me the math actual facts that support that it's a joint employer so under the ability to hire fire all those things is facilities what is the reliant is obviously going to add here to that but it doesn't make them a joint employer that's the way like normal contract of loaning employees work right and so it's happenstance here they're not transferring to a faraway location because they're taking it reliance not because the of any animal they're doing it because quality care doesn't wander at their facilities right that's progress doesn't that happen all the time in these types of relationships where you loan employees and they say this person is legally this person is x that doesn't make them a joint employer makes  someone in a contract or employees saying i don't like these three send them somewhere else but in those times the situations that covered me as an employment agency is an awkward vehicle but i think it worked thank you so much counsel at this time can you please disconnect will get so thank you thank you cassidy can you please confirm when the attorneys have disconnected to confirm that attorneys have disconnected thank you your honor if you need to contact the operator in case you can hear one of your colleagues or any other questions you would dial stars zero at this time your place in a conference with just yourselves we will disconnect after i finish in the let you know they operate a legend everyone still on the line or someone's been disconnected if you do the stars hero do you require anything further at this time no thank you very much thank you for your honour's have a great afternoon rest of the day and once i hung up hang up the judge's castiel come on and let you know that you will be the only ones on the line ok thank you thank you