went away on the issue the only one there were two summary judgments in this case with another was there was a limitation on summary correct and found that some of these disciplinary actions created i think there were some that were referred to five or seven that were referred to created there were tribal issues the fact that as i understand what the benefits and the rights that were that mr wells was titled to and then the question is well what damages he has a remedy the court can either force them to hire him well he had already come back and they were trying to terminate there as you've been treated very broadly so what i have left are damages and it's probably maybe it was my fault i should have said and pointed the jury to ok he wasn't allowed to teach anymore and it wasn't allowed to teach at the because he failed to call it and how his employer he was returning right right right understand the court recognized that there were some elements of damages some elements of you sir of violations but as i understand looking at the two hundred fifty six thousand dollars jury verdict the inference was that the jury had to conclude that he had suffered damages by a loss of his employment and the only way that you get to that is  ner stan i could be off but do we get to that is that in a fact what happened was constructive discharge by a series of retaliatory disciplinary actions and yes the last segment of mr wallace's career was in the north division where he wanted to being here everything was going along fine and then this woman comes in and says she's going to file a complaint against him if he doesn't back up or racial discrimination complaint and he walks off the job so how do they get to two hundred fifty six thousand dollars of damages without looking at the totality of all these in concluding that somehow you sirrah violations two hundred fifty six thousand dollars in damages which apparently at least according to according to the city is the measure of damages that would correspond to all of these past benefits if his leaving the job or him losing the job was a direct result of the violation if you start this to court then had a reason to say it looks like the jury could only have found that it was constructive destruction because the measure of damages does my not in any other way i disagree with that because there was damages are either two hundred fifty six thousand dollars or nothing or some kind of you know minimal damages then you have a theory that will sustain two hundred fifty six thousand dollars and that doesn't sound like a theory that the allow a jury to say well that they were looking for the amount of damages to give him that there was nothing else on the record and as far as answering a question about anything being hunky dory when he goes back to north eastern north in division it wasn't you have to remember narrowly maybe i shouldn't and i'm not going to let you get into this because it was how you what you could name your damages i just felt that this was the best measure of the overall damages that he suffer environment you should be able to be compensated for it and so part of your claim letters to your recruiter was a hostile work environment concept which may have led to his walking off the job yesterday and you may want to save the rest of your time for you know pointed that out in their order one thing they could have done and they did was proceed on a discrimination claim for discrimination they could have showed that she was just treated unfavorably because  that was fine now but listen opposed to make a parallel let's suppose the boss knew that the person they're going to complain to somebody you didn't know was in egos complained he just knew that this person had gone on to tell some outside agency in this case they knew that this guy had gone it didn't matter they work for the military they say look you have a job in san diego police you need to be back here and this well i'm i'm a little fuzzy now on which are you coming back to the question we had before which if you're saying he could have been employed by consequence it was i was employed by the military they knew he was why he was absent correct right so they knew so the only argument that you were as i understand you to make is that they didn't realize that you sir are a protected that right until he told them to do is that right on april fourth right ok so you're saying that unless the service moon poll tells the employer that he's entitled to be off even though he's told them why he's off that there's no use or a liability right i think that's your position ok well that doesn't seem to make a lot of  family medical leave act on the employer or does the does of the employer's liability doesn't turn on whether or not they happen to know they're the employer charged with knowing the law aren't they right and i agree i think that confusing point and i look where they in fact did take action against him and that a jury could reasonably have found that those were retaliation with that the you know what is subject of a new trial on damages limited to any consequences that flow from that i will conduct that one of the different courts order concerns me too and i think i was initially when he's getting written up and served all these papers from the time he august fourth on because he didn't call them i tell him he was not coming back when he used there are protected him from that he didn't he have fourteen retaliation was there any jury instruction relating to discrimination as opposed to retaliation you know i have my head i don't recall i know we went over them and i had suggested quite a few i mean i had actually suggested a special jury verdict and the judge commander and started the fourth writing writing the of disciplinary that he did not show up to work and he was over in bosnia ok and he just went downhill from there ok thank you very much thank you both