i believe that the just record relied on one thousand nine hundred eighty three law as opposed to title seven law and reasoning that because there was the which is your due process right to contest whether there's a good cause to terminate and that's a different primary right from claiming that there's retaliation and i would like that the court to look at this in the context of what is not in the mix motive german to terminate you why should i can you go to trial and retaliation claim what is there to dissolve and what there is to decide is even if there was quote unquote cause to terminate you with the employer senator kathy right in that letter talks about the fact that the inspector general has been investigating a number of issues regarding youth authority in this conduct and and individuals who were selectively targeted for discipline and that letter is kind of gives context to what is in the elijah report this under seal and it helps gives context in the point the court made for select prosecution going on and why is there selective prosecution going on why is why are some people being disciplined who fired for the same quote unquote misconduct that other people aren't being disciplined for and employee can do that within the state structure you can make a complaint to the state personnel board of retaliation under government code section eighty five forty seven or you can make a complaint to the inspector general under penal code section sixty one personal board has just posted its hearing until the inspector general has completed its investigation and come back with this report now miss franklin and her whoever was representing her at the time i  independently investigate it in this case by the inspector general and that retaliation relates to the discipline that we're looking at what would what should happen i believe even if you the statutory scheme anticipates the s p v will be on hold until that investigation is completed once that investigation is completed the report which what happened in this case gets sent to the employer to take appropriate action in this case the reports as i was talking about the investigation which is what should have happened in this case the problem was not use the we didn't get that report until after my client had gone through the s p v process had been terminated had the titian for had the rehearing denied all while she's believes there is no why she reported actually she was told that there was no way she reported her favor by the inspector general mr in january of ninety nine but for it once they redo the investigation to do it right that didn't happen here what happened here is youth authority from what i can tell and the record did not follow the recommendation the inspector general did not reopen the investigation did not re law my client is is going through every imaginable before i got on the case every national legal procedure she can well in state court in the state personnel board trying to get somebody a look at inspector general report and act on it the use of already is hiding the ball is holding that report not giving it to her not giving it to the state personnel board and letting her kind of   because a protective order she can't use it in state court anyway so what i want the court to understand is theoretically a person could you don't have to theoretically a person interview you because of these allegations against you here's all these allegations against you the her complaint to the inspector general if you go from reading the report obviously became an investigation  terminations and the basis for her terminations so we have her instead of trying to get a remedy in the state personnel board for her claim of retail retaliation she went is to be given to the state court rulings which have already adjudicated ms franklin's claim that she was improperly terminated from her job now appellant would have the parties in this court after years of litigation whether there was retaliation in the decision to terminate her she raised it with the state personnel board she testified and argued that these allegations against her were manufactured the disciplined being terminated with their findings made on the retaliation issue specifically he did not articulate a finding but he articulated in the decision that she was claiming  she had the opportunity to litigate it because she mentions it at every step along the way that this is retaliation she always comes back to this is retaliation so it's not clear cut whether she actually abandoned it but there is no doubt that she had the opportunity to litigate it in every state and a judicial and administrative farm which she participated in before getting to the federal court claim that that would somehow help her on her retaliation claim on the issue of the inspector general report ms franklin has not yet identified to this court or any other form what properly and his interpretation of california law is that the personnel proceeding should have ceased until the investigation until there was a real investigation what's your response to them well there's no point in doing a reinvestigation i am i have not seen anything that would indicate that they are mandated to conduct a new investigation so what is the purpose of the i g report if there is retaliation and i'm talking theoretically i'm not talking about this particular case right if there is do you agree that the i g has the authority to investigate a claim of retaliation in state government in the presence o and in an overall general context i know the inspector general makes recommendations i do not believe that the inspector general has any in force much arm i don't think they're allowed to join gangs or action in your view between the state personnel board proceedings and the inspector general's proceedings in those situations where there's an overlap or corrections employee i mean opposing counsel set up a construct  suggesting the state personnel board proceedings have to await the inspector general's recommendations but that was the whole point and that didn't happen here so what is your view of just  theoretical procedural sense how those two things fit together certainly your honor ordinarily no one noticed that the inspector general is investigating the state personnel board would have no way of knowing that there's an inspector general investigation going on and lost someone to the state personnel board and made that bring representation to them which actually did happen in this case ok what there is to do once they know proceed if be able to use it in state prison alvord proceedings the inspector general's primary function is to go we and clean up corruption and other problems in the prison systems and the the inspector general report did not going to fit anybody they had no prob is value on any issue but in order to determine that the document had to be part of the record you can look at the  the title seven case if there is evidence that procedures are not here to that's evidence of pretax and evidence of retaliation when you agree  of the internal investigation it's definitely relevant and there is nothing about that investigation that wasn't already befor to litigate her retaliation plan before the ministry of law judge was hearing her for the case of her of terminations is there anything in california law well not under these circumstances if you go back to the primary right if it's the same primary right you can't if you're if you're the one filing a lawsuit if if if she was as opposed to and she didn't say i'm going to forget about the oh i g and litigate my retaliation here before the state personnel court she consistently said i have a retaliation complaint out there with and i would like you to stay personal board to consider the