thank you on behalf of the rycote i thank you for this opportunity and reserve five minutes for a bottle now this court's recent bishop decision provides guidance on how the cat's paw issues should be evaluated in light of the supreme court's nassar decision the bishop court found nasser's but for causation occurs if a non decision makers performance reviews played a role in the decision makers terminations of the plaintiffs and here the causation standards of nasser bishop are satisfied for at least three reasons first at least thirty different facts collectively show non decision makers conduct was the but for causation  of others and at least eleven facts establishing strawbs first and second prong with regard to dr burkley the second major finding a reasonable juror would likely make is that non decision makers concealed evidence of retaliatory animus by providing false and misleading information to the decision makers such as provost now the bishop decision addresses a third related major finding that's critical here and that is that a reasonable juror would likely find at least ten additional reasons to conclude that for a ludo's deposition testimony completely undermines his absolutely nothing if i give you the ten reasons you'll get a better handle on the tenure it is a ten year decision and did bring meyer who is the dean of the college that every case that he tricked who is the decision maker in this case he's the provost into believing that certain division faculty members have tamed federal funded grants prior to obtaining tenure now if provost a little would have done the careful review that his affidavit ere he would have known he was being tricked because that das year contain many explicit examples of tenured faculty members within the division who did not have federal funding it also detailed how up and coming tenured faculty below in reeky were not being required to have federal funding now programs to ludo admitted in his deposition that he had never little admitted that the committee members that he asked to assist him in this evaluation they lacked the professional experience in re case academic discipline alou don't also acknowledge the committee that assisted him burger meyer or the dean's false statements which caused the provost allude to dismiss concerns about it back to denver named bill christian book christian during the faculty vote right when the thing get were dismissed as without merit and i'd like you that are voting on that to take that into consideration when you cast your vote today that is direct evidence for tally ation and it's also false because that all christians comments in the meaning those are clearly in front of this court with regard to elude o whether he was the cat's paw or not now there's a separation from his court as to whether that was an independent cause a backlash in which would fall under equitable tolling but that's a completely separate issue even if this court were to find there is no record will tolling ok you're arguing your argument goes to the cas they can't i'm purely talking about caspar right i'm talking about the ways in which the non decision makers lied and deceived the decision maker by providing false information and getting to your point your honor what did happen when when the decision maker which was alluded asks  examples but it's my time is running low i want to jump back into this you have a question to cover the other facts but there are at least in the in the briefs over fifty facts which establish the first three elements of straw and as a issues supports enrique's claims that a ludo never broke the causal chain created by the non decision makers the second issue related to the expert witness is the  thought that conclusion but the district court that in order to demonstrate breaking of the causal chain you'd have to show what in fact d false information more likely than not he did not get it but but that but the question your honor the suppose we say ok we're listening we're listening but we still don't have actual evidence of what was going amar provides no evidence on that topic he merely said that a little received inaccurate information from the non decision makers a little could have been should have gone out and obtained somebody with unbiased knowledge with the skill set and the at least inaccurate if not deceitful information was ever looked at by by is i think it's best to look at what the judge said but the judge didn't say that he didn't look at it no he did your honor what the judge said was show are was allowed to testify on three things the nature and quality of every case publications the kind of grant funding available in case field and the tenure process in general for professors of pharmacy so does that he provides a testimony which the judge completely ignores for example with the federal grant funding which is really a key part of this case john o'mara says it was like asking an n f l draft pick to become the envy pee in the n it was such a high standard that nobody met and john amar should know because he's been in this field a long time so when shown him are provides his testimony the judge just blows it off that testimony specifically addresses the fourth the court the district court granted summary judgment on this case this is a retaliation case and it is a ten year case and the standard tenure cases for the court is very high because tenure in complaints and dr sunni's complaints went to two things it's basically went to two things the rules for tenure were not followed by various people many of whom were not par purposes and certainly under vans which are since i own the same level as other people they're there for their co faculty members now the people who vote on tenure are the next rank up but they would never qualify as supervisors under the dance case they are do not decision makers what they do is vote and it's a recommendation that goes to the next level the coast the next level the process is very elaborate we have to decide in this case whether or not coworkers doing some of these things are sufficient for purposes of finding catspaw liability nobody seems to have really come down on that yet no one has come down on that yet and of course vance's knew the answer was a harassment case not a retaliation case and it's a new case so no i don't think anyone's come down on that issue i don't think it's actually i mean it's important to us but it's not determinative because the nasser case made the standard in a retaliation case but for standard and in this case the district judge was of course for dealing in on a motivating factor standard but even at that standard he found that they did not meet that standard in this tenure case that allude decision was retaliation under the cat's paw theory in addition but now we have a higher standard but for standard and these facts are this case clearly do not meet a but for standard of retaliation and even though stalled itself talks about a motivating factor star was not a retaliation case star was decided before nasser and the us supreme court was in phatic in nasser that the standard in the tally case now is a but for standard and that would mean that but for loto ludo would have granted dr tenure there is absolutely no evidence of that the evidence is absolutely clear that provost ludo himself looked at the issues here and the issue was that that dr siani raised was whether there was a violation of the rules for tenure at ohio state and whether certain letters that were written by external reviewers and himself and he did that himself dr odo looked at that he certainly did your honor and his affidavit is quite clear about the process he took and counsel says that dr ludo's deposition many fields there are at your house state university so he can't be an expert in all those fields but he doesn't need to be an expert in all those fields he reads the da ca he reads the summary of what the the the person says they did what they plan to do and what he does is he compares it to his view of whether this academic record and this work is sufficient to get tenure at the of hostin university the holding and accurate information if that's that's one of the arguments that were being presented with well your honor on one set of the allegations were that the rules at ohio state had been prosciutto reviewed the rules he compared what happened and there's no dispute about what the the the plaintiffs claimed happened the appellant claimed happened he compared what he says was wrong to the rules and he said no that letter you can't submit that letter at their vote meeting of the faculty you submit that letter as iraq but all after the dean has written his letter to see if there was any factual information in those letters that conflicted with what was in the core dossier and those letters the the that the main thrust of many of those letters and he complains about two of gaither but others of those letters were equally negative about dr c e o nice performance and the and the theme across all of the letters from the outside reviewers the faculty and all the way up and see dr lewis own view is they let that his research lacked focus it lacked the path of research to become an expert in an area they all had the same theme all the way up everybody all the way up had recommended an io tenure but even at that the doctor alluded referred this to what's called the university p and t committee that's the committee that i believe council was referring to the university p n t committee are professors from the entire university and in fact people from the college of pharmacy were not permitted to sit in this case on that committee so they're not experts in his field they are experts in academia and what they do is they look at the academic record he's complaining because they only looked at the academic record that's what they're to do they looked at the academic record they reached the same conclusion they didn't even know dr c and they reach the same conclusion lack of focus lack of clear research path lack of clear plan for research they all reach the same conclusion and that was a five person negative vote they look at these documents that his counsel claim you're paul well they would have looked at their external review letters and they would have looked at the letters that came up but they also would look at the core dot ca they would look at his work and you'd they do you don't have to read every publication because the cover summary that he pares tells you what they are the you look at  the the names of the publications the summary at the beginning of the publication you know what the publications about you know that this one's about one thing and this is about something else and this is about something else and that's what they all said what extent would they have been open to what extent does the record give us any indication that they would have been influenced by this question of whether or not he was a doctor say on he was able to or had attempted to get federal grants to support his research none of them talked about the fed brands and the issue wasn't he didn't have enough federal grants some of the letters to talk about he had about three hundred o contracts from entities to do work but as far as federal funding that wasn't really discussed and it certainly wasn't discussed by you lose a little said it was on his whole academic record not he didn't mention federal funding at all and the thing i think that's key here is that all of these allegations that dr c oni's making one they are not what difference would that make in this case here we are there's absolutely no evidence in this case that any of these outside reviewers for biased against dr sione there is absolutely no evidence of that in this case and in addition if you look at the letters he complains about two of the extra reviewers being biased but two other of the external reviewers write just as negative letters again complain about them being biased  those things influence the decision that dr allusion made looking at this now under the cat's paw theory to satisfy the fourth element of a prime of so i know that that we're looking we have to find a but for here but but i think where it gets confusing is that there is this claim that meyer in these various others  biased against him were retaliated against him for things that he had done and that it was their activities which misled dr or provost  into coming to the conclusion to which he came is the doctor a little wouldn't have come to that decision but for all of this bad information that he was given by people who gave it it provided with a retaliatory retaliatory to see if there was a violation he compared to the rules he said no this was what the rules said we should do he compared the men at letters that he got he compared all of that to the core dot ca and said no ca what papers he wrote lacked focus what this is what these people are saying is true it's there's no law is in these letter from the dean or from the chair there's no law is in these letters from that extra reviewers in the sense that they're supported by the academic record that we here have there's no evidence here that professor that proposed to ludo was duped by anybody which is what you require for tatts paul he knew what these complaints were he reviewed them he compared them to the record he compared them to the rules and he determined that there was that his his opinion the academic record did not support tenure at ohio state university there's no evidence he was duped by anybody it was no hiding it i'm sorry i'm out of town the the complaints that dr sione made were also wall in the record that taim to doctor to probe to the provost and he reviewed all those complaints so he wasn't duped by anybody nothing was hidden here it's not cats posset you ancient he had full knowledge of what the allegations were and so he personally compared the information to the rules in the record and reached the conclusion that tenure was not appropriate here and the standard here with  he would have reached the conclusion to give dr sione tenure but for retaliated to retaliatory animists there's no evidence he had any retaliatory animists and there's and and therefore this thank you i'd like to briefly address some of your questions and some of the comments the suggestion first of all that federal funding was never an issue and absolutely false the record shows that certain division faculty were negative on every case tenure because he didn't get the federal supervisor whether there can spawn the issue actually never raised that issue on an appeal to come back and attack through the thompson case but if you look at thompson these folks are clearly supervisors because they are boating on a ten year decision which is a decision to hire  now they're one of a both ways but that is in the brief what's very important here when when when oh she's talking about a higher standard please look carefully at the cases they're citing they're all distinguishable many of them don't even stone even nascar bought for its critical but what i want to touch on is this extra word viewer thing because it's very important that we understand how they were selected there is that there were some people that sent on a committee that was created in part to address in committee to select the external reviewers a little was absolutely deceived on dozens of facts but one of them was the extra reviewers he was led to believe that they were somehow objectively neutral when meyer described them as the most negatively critical panel he could ever think of a little more equally important is a little rejected but let me step back please because before it goes to a live show then it goes to this committee called kaffir when care forgot this issue they looked at these these careers and they said two of them were by a latino issue rules because their decisions they couldn't give an unbiased arm's length opinion that he should even been asked to serve as an external reviewers have shown them are yet kaffir and then it comes to the next kid committee which was the back of the hearing committee now what did they do with that issue the same thing the dean did they rejected it because  dean lied to them the dean and the hot and perky told these committees that look in reeky can't complain about those extra reviewers because we gave him the names before we selected and he didn't object those are completely false he got the names after they were selected and he could not object so there are just dozens of facts on those issues space particularly the external reviewers which goes i think to the heart your out claims question about something your summary of the factual issues are critical there are over thirty facts detailed in the brief that talk about non decision maker animists and attempts to it was suggested that professor alert actually read the publications he admitted he did not read the publications that was his deposition testimony and the answer to your question judge still are about did that committee see what it was an everyday row after the tenure the answer is no they did not review it they told professor that they didn't have the resources to review it promised later said i'm not going to give you the resources instead provost ludo story and anderson told that to allude oh in a little believed it had he read that stack of paper he would have no those stories were false what about your opposing counsel sighing at that as to  connection to sun almost every single issue i've talked about today but there are the there retaliatory animas for example on the federal funding issue goes back to when enrique got four years before he got that you've got to take that out of there we recommend that you not require him to get federal funding grants but instead let him get what everybody else got he read nor is it the dean doesn't implement it he lets it sit in the file and percolate up to the ten year vote bishop case you'll see that what they said is if if the workplace is abuzz with knowledge of the employees protected activities those are those can be deemed to the non decision makers as no thank you council the case of the submitted