final case this morning report versus right house networks the district court erred in granting broad house's motion as there was sufficient evidence that wright house retaliated against miss israel for it by increasing her workload and then by firing her after she made internal complaints of discrimination to activities the first being internal complaints of discrimination that she reported to h r and also the second being her filing of a claim with the e e o c it was these two acts that resulted in mrs reliford suffering from adverse employment actions such as be increased workload and her terminations with regard to her first protected activity be internal complaints of discrimination  for which she made that transfer her supervisor then became christy piper and this is rather heard contend that mrs piper was treating her differently on the basis of race as a result was his role for then went to roll for testify that she actually had to work through her lunch and other breaks to get through her workload as mrs piper would not allow her to have overtime the factual dispute comes in because m testified that the reason why she gave mrs rowe for more work was because she had some employees to leave if she needed to reassign some of their workers time as two other employees and mrs roll over it was one of them however mrs r testimony is that there were other employees i'm sorry that mrs piper took work from other employees who were currently working abroad house and put it on her plate and the start of just leaving the work where it was told wasn't necessarily because that there was and there were employees who left need to reassign work but that she actually did in fact take work from other employees and gave it to mrs rowe for mrs roper also testified that there was actually a coworker of hers who tired of you the h r representative that she was speaking to suzy is tired of you and she wants you fired that is enough to create an inference that mrs piper was certainly aware this is relevant complaints to h r about networks and therefore there were certain positions eliminated that one of those positions was a work order resolution representative mrs rela first title however was a sub billing account representative and what all the facts show particularly the two documents from bright house show was that mrs reliford was in fact a stub billing account representative and she held that position for six years before she was terminated by  she was a sub billing account representative but when it came time to the when the downsizing so place them brought house a zero in our system you actually still work with a resolution representative and they got rid of mrs ro but there are no documents that have been produced to suggest that mrs reliford was a factory worker resolution wrap there's only a statement from h r this says that she was a worker resolution representative but again the two documents from bright house were i suggest that she are not suggesting actually state that she was a fact a sub building account representative and therefore she should not have been one of those positions that was eliminated thousand and fourteen and that she was terminated in march twenty sixth two thousand and sixteen unfortunate from this role for not only did she fill to establish the three part test that this court is establ establish a retaliation claim she also relies on arguments that are there waived or not supported by record evidence the first retaliatory act and maybe i'm hearing a concession regarding the verbal abuse  court level in this role for acknowledges that these were not ebers employment actions and least in the briefing it appears that she tries to resurrect these claims on appeal there's two ways a look at this if they've been abandoned at the district court or the stated the piper knew of her internal complaints prior to september two thousand and fourteen again these arguments are waived there are always rape rays for the first time on appeal and cannot be brought before this court in any event there are two undisputed there's no evidence that this is reason why her work will work load was increased this role for makes the argument before the court that it increased job load is an adverse employment action that's not the proper law understandably the court has that the fine ever simply an action probably but the facts show that in september of two thousand and fourteen there were two employees who i expect left the department one went on to leave and never came back the other  was promoted out of the department so what the testimony shows is that these duties are evenly distributed among the employees in the sub billing department that was missing the testimony is far is trying to show pretext on this testify this sheet evenly distribute these these duties mr offered also states in the briefing that these individuals were left up to department months before september of two thousand and fourteen again this argument is way because it was not made at the district court and should not be considered it's important to know that ultimately once mr all for major complains that she was given a heavy workload she was also me relieved to some of these duties the district court probably held that there is no evidence to demonstrate that piper had a scientist and work duties at in a retaliatory act now the last one her terminations and march of two two thousand six hundred she was terminated the job was eliminated based on automation and then explain to you how this works out when a technician comes to your house you order for cable t v and your initial order is you want h b o be get there you say you know i think i want cinemax and showtime as well so at that time before that the job was automated the technician would thought of form he would take it back to the to the facility in a work order resolution representative likeness roll for it would manually enter the data so the personally would be properly built well based on new technology and in twenty sixteen a technician go to your house and he if you made that change they could do it in an automated fashion with i have the thought form that's why the job was eliminated there's this resolution of the resolution apartment was merged with the subscriber accounting department and that time this role for two held the job title of work or resolution representative her and two other people went to this new department and what missed in this  became her supervisor and what happened is this miss piper met with the worker resolution represents and the sub billing reps and they did they cross train the on each other's duty so they essentially were performing the same duties but they held different different job titles one other person retain the job of work order resolution representative talk about that both miss morgan and mr offered continue to retain the job title of work order resolution representative and that she did not know she did not know why the positions had that change in the system that they were separate occasions in almost four separate occasions the e e o c representative would not allow her to file charges communication because quote she did not have a case now really we hear a company say the that the company agrees with you know a couple of minutes and focus today is why was mrs rella for his job eliminated was it for retaliation or for some not retaliatory reason and as far as all the evidence suggest certainly coming to the inference that the bright house did retaliate against her because this piper testify that she should have been a sub billing rep she was in fact disability wrap but it was just not listed in bright house the system for whatever reason is she doesn't know why because that's not her role or function to change that mrs rella for was under the impression to and she has to solicit the help of other employees to help her get through it so there certainly is a an adverse employment action where she could be prevented from or discouraged from going to h r with any more complaints of