simply performing her job duties concedes that those duties are why she recorded with things she did and nonetheless contends that doing so amount to protect a concept manager which is widely adopted by many courts so that's kind of curious used to reasons that she did not engage you protect economy the best tell me the best black letter you don't have to call good manager rule what's the best language that you've got in these cases hearing on we touched on the manager rule a bit already but it does not allow an employee to bring established protected conduct when they were merely exercising her job duties instead of stepping outside of their roles and that that language that i cited there comes from this court's decision both anscar and in each be easy but it's consistent with how other circuits have interpreted and applied that rule as well but this court has addressed similar situations before i believe like in his example of a summary judgment saving affidavit but it's hard and argue possible to reconcile with her admission that her deposition  that that is or that the things that she did she was asked quote that's how you were able to identify that some of the statements were suspect to us but were payments correct answer yes i don't know how she can say now an affidavit offered a summary judgment that testimony doesn't mean exactly what it says under the minnesota whistleblower statute as well generally involves what role employees job duties in purpose for making a report when that becomes protected exhausted here you've got circuits ago both adopting and rejecting it and there are a mixed bag of circuits too i might add what you typically think and all fairly modern cases so where does that leave which i think derive straight from the statute it talks of the statute includes terms oppose and in having the th circuit talked about how employee who is performing their job duties is not opposing the they're doing exactly what the company expects of them and that's further bolster here by mister starkey admitting that she did what she did one to do her job to in an attempt to protect the company that is not opposition on that and so i would argue that those circuits that have adopted and applied the rule were justified in wanting doing so and think that this case is a great case is just before rather strange procedural posture and you know did the court do you think the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction once it got past all the federal questions in this case abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction yes questions of state law resolving the summary judgment issues on a whole bunch of state issues and then mandate what's left you know i mean it strikes me that either you're going to exercise a little jurisdiction or you're not and this is an awfully odd decision where you just say ok i'm going to give my guidance to the state courts and say you don't got to mess with any of these other state was issues and then stand alone that they still think is alive back not strikes me as a district work i mean i knew that the job for you know seventeen years i would never have done that i mean if i had decided i was going to extract supplemental jurisdiction i would actually say jurisdiction over all the state wide claims and just said i'm doing it but this sor to do so two to rule on the merits so to speak but to not withhold the case is unique as you know it and i actually noticed it live a month or two after this decision i don't have to name the case but the district court encountered a similar scenario where they den its decision on this issue and the case law goes all over the place the circuits are split on whether to redact is manager ruling it's into i'll take a look know certain ways this is what they do damien they now it would be difficult do you distinguish between what is a part of their job and what in looking at those instances where they go yeah but it doesn't mean they did she is responsible for auditing men or doing anything other than making sure you're on i like to compare this to a situation where you have a butcher who has a job description which said your to comply ensure compliance recall safety state in local safety violations does that mean richer has a job which requires him to go around and check to see if everyone else what it in this instance your honor she identified she found out information initially not in in a different manner because she did not have access to those records so many of these records that many of these instances she didn't have access to the records to be in with to say ok i need to go ahead and take care of the you know i mean go ahead and make sure  coals texas medicaid that's medicaid health or you guys are committing insurance fraud and then again it goes to period say listen this is what they're telling but i don't think that it's in the same thing as the on in which you know relies on heavily where the whole purpose of that job is to report gentle compliance columns is or is not not i don't believe that they are i mean i don't i mean i think that obviously if she sees them she reports them with a whole bunch of other things a lot of quotes may have the same dude right i mean that's different job descriptions for different positions may have overlapping duties and or what i hear you saying and i'm not sure i'm hearing you either because description and her testimony but somehow factually these particular discoveries were all side of the ordinary gambit of the work that she did and that she therefore reported them some zero side of her  create a whole lot of evidentiary issues for the courts but in this instance she her job duties were to collect and she was ahead of the collection compartment those were her job dut that is the case her job wasn't a daily activity making sure that they were following but was in that position that she had her j job primarily and almost entirely was to collect and that's what she did and she did a very good job and that's why i just don't think even if this   think what want like to said you know we're asking that they don't and her job like they said was not to audit or would you or report not even on a daily basis not even on a bet had never come up for career or job description and whether she was the part of this manager or thing that never came up if you noticed mark reith mr wise when he interviewed with many of us he said nothing about her role as a reporter or wrong activity or as some type of an auditor in her position the depositions that were taken of management  higher up leadership never said anything about beats being in the types of this big type of role that she should stir in her job so this came up and so what we i see my time or here you know forty six to forty five is going all right i would like to talk a little bit about the about dismissing hype india as the employer in this case three now three individuals who are at that management management well very similar to restart they were all over the age of forty  i wanted to point out that there was an issue raised by mister and about whether or not miss starkey was able to identify these issues in the course of their job and she was explicitly asked that h deposition again she was pointing to who she was walking through her job duties in the job description one just wanted to the agenda she was asked quote that's how you were able to identify these things she said yes and then judge erickson your already pointed out but since the district court noted it as well i did want to mention but overlapping duties has no role in the analysis of many of the manager rules whether or not it applies a lot of times companies with h r departments legal departments compliance departments or even just managers in general have multiple people who do managerial functions so what matters is whether or not you already have that within their job duties whether they stay within those duties on that because i think employers get to stay with him or his job options are shipped knowledged in amid all of those things at her deposition and even went so far as to say that those duties are quote why i reported the things that i did fifteen days after that was terminated and the panel correctly looked at this precedent to say that is not enough and it was actually especially weak given all that was going on here in this case that involves re submitted for decision by the court