a subject of race discrimination and retaliation with respect to a three day suspension that she received in september two thousand and six and with respect to the denial of the promotion to a g s a love and sexual assault response coordinator position when that position became good did your client that's one option i believe saw by submitting her resume as directed by the colonel and the issue here is that miss safer was the person who could be a detail like contacting the civilian personnel advisory center and requesting that that go forward the evidence shows that she did not do that and did so failed to do so in february two thousand and sixteen less than a month after she was interviewed concerning charges of discrimination made by my client by the army at rock island arsenal so the position was never was never posted and she never formally applied for sure i am sorry record show she was actually assigned to the prison if you look at exhibits three to the motion for summary judgment which is page right so it's our position that they failed to provide her with the benefit after assigning her to be entitled to that position with respect to the three day suspension client did not do that and so she was determined by miss seaver to be insubordinate and referred for discipline and was also mentally given a three day suspension for failing to perform the task the problem is that the record shows that that's not the duties of a victim advocate or a sark there is record here that let all training and materials for training were to be created and come out of fort riley kansas despite being told this  that my client create these materials which is not within her the scope of her duties and when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to miss robertson on this i that's in the record and that was something that mr clay is a decision makers and showed her insubordination with respect to the race discrimination issue on that watkins provided testimony in the record that it was clear from her observations of day to day that linda was being treated differently by teresa seabirds because of her race and that sea board would monitor linda's comings and goings when other white employees were able to take breaks at any time army argues this does not constitute race discrimination because she failed to follow the duty or follow the order given by sievers but my as to the failure to promote also we have the evidence that in july two thousand and fifteen siebert told both nottingham and my client that she would never be promoted to a g s eleven sark because it then my client in december two thousand and fifteen files a charge of discrimination against her for other affirmed st and foremost the district court apply the correct standard at the summary judgment stage by asking whether a reasonable cherry could find based on all the evidence that a discriminatory or retaliatory motive caused the adverse events here in this case those adverse events being the suspension and the non selection for the job detail and this overriding question begs the question what pieces of evidence according to miss robertson point to an illicit motive and when considering that question the court should not consider facts and arguments that were not raised by ms roberts in her somebody judgment reply as those arguments are now waived fundamentally robertson's core argument is twofold that the  st that the basis for her suspension insubordination was a lie because she properly refused to do an assignment that wasn't quote in her lane and quote and nd she says that the failure to select her for this one hundred and twenty day t v detail was retaliation as shown by suspicious timing between her protected activity and her non selection so turning st to appellant's argument that the three day suspension was pretext for racial discrimination in the law and pretext is fairly straightforward pretext means a lie a phony reason for some and for his action and the burden is on miss robertson to offer evidence that the nondiscriminatory reason provided by darrell clay the suspension decision maker was a lie intended to mask awful discrimination and the question for the court here is not whether they will play was right or wrong or whether the court agrees or disagrees with his evidence is undisputed that mr robertson i disobeyed orders from her supervisor theresa siebert to prepare the training packages in fact i wrote down what counsel just said in his argument he said quote my client did not do that and quote his client did not obey the orders that her supervisor had given her that's the fundamental basis for the suspension insubordination is not dispute that's how it argues that indeed there was evidence that there equated not on asli believe that she had been insubordinate and she says that the evidence is that she met with carol clay on a few occasions or emailed him on a couple of occasions saying that she had consulted with other persons within the army outside of her chain of command who had told her that victim advocates are not responsible for creating training packages the problem is that she raising that argument for the st time in disappear in her summary judgment response there is no mention of any meetings with their requests or any communications with clay moreover the feedback  within her job description to prepare these training mag packages merely challenges the wisdom of the assignment itself but the the propriety or the benefits to miss robertson of completing th something for federal courts to determine federal courts are not super personnel departments that will substitute their judgments for those of businesses or employers as to whether or not the assignment is appropriate  and that leads into miss robertson said retaliation claim so to prevail on her retaliation claim is robertson must show that she engaged in a protected activity that she suffered an adverse employment action and that there's a connection between the two and  noted in the tellings argument miss robertson cannot actually show an adverse employment decision with respect to this one hundred and twenty day job detail because there never was  position for mr robertson to apply for the position never came out there was no job posting nobody was selected for this job detail because it did not exist so at the end of the day as far as her claim regarding this job details she cannot show that she suffered an adverse employment  t turning just briefly to her arguments that her suspension was also retaliatory i miss roberts in attempts to base that argument on suspicious timing and she says that the court erred in finding that protected activity was her complaint to darrell clay in may and july th seen which were closer in time to sievers proposal to suspend her and like many of the arguments that have been presented here today retaliation but the court may consider it to be a factor when the adverse employment action follows on the close heels of protected activity and here robertson does not dispute that the july twenty six thousand proposal to suspend was the adverse employment action for purposes  this retaliation claim but instead she's disputing what the protected activity was that triggered the alliance retaliation she saying that it was her communications with daryl clay but in for complaint she said that the protected activity was h have given rise to a retaliation claim so if there are no further questions from the court in conclusion i respectfully submit that the judgment of the district court should be different thank you very much thank you very you have two minutes