record it's been indicated by the athlete is being made nine we have indicated it was may th that was the date on which mr quinn took statements from the employee in the ask you about the evidence in this case we have some written evidence what his motives may have been to effect with this brown career at wal mart how did those affect the actually that's basically what we gave it so we have these written statements made twelve or dates like that if taking the statements determining who was going to give a statement which by the way the court long person still colleges but no date indicated showed a lack of independence of the investigation focuses on mr brown then once the investigation failed to yield any evidence showing that miss brown had ordered the bad stop despite mr quinn's best efforts mr a bear was primed based on what he had been told by mr quinn to find a violation by miss brown he ultimately did not find miss brown as i laid a piano on for the bad stop what he found was that ms brown had improperly engaged with the customer now we would dispute a p o not as written prohibit seeing gauge meant as describing the record of a but be more importantly being engaged meant between miss brown and the costumer was nearly identical to the engagement between mr quinn and  rhythm tie a tied statement by your client and she's set up a story of what happened but she also says once the woman came back and i think maybe there was more than one customer  and while it may not be inconsistent it certainly is incomplete you know we are looking at this incident in the cool light of later acquired facts when we have ourselves in those brown's position it's our understanding that the that her statement which was expounded on by the deposition testimony and the written statements of other individuals were involved in a non violation at the time and the statements they gave mr a bare this was a very volatile situation the moreover he looked at her purse i believe that deposition testimony as she even let me look in her purse this customer clearly irate had no intention on leaving wal mart because paulson was brown because she said she what she should have done was disengage and let the customer really the customer had no intention of leaving in fact she stayed for approximately forty five minutes the majority of that time was with mr quinn and that that your honor goes to show the circumstances but it also goes to discipline based on or a talent for investigation which we will concede mr quinn had to report what his motivation reporting it was to have miss brown fired that's not clear from all the evidence regarding retaliatory motives admitted she knew it was a bad stop and yet then in her deposition she also admitted she told the customer she had several questions and then she does acknowledge that she compared the receipt to the car cart so he didn't take steps that look like he still suspects a shoplifter am i wrong about those two facts your honor i don't know that it's there's anywhere specifically in the record that indicates that quinn knew it was stopped however you are believed what the record indicates is that missed this brown was called to the front because there was a call to mandy i agree and that sounds similar disgruntled customer but then she immediately from the front and would never of even been analyzed what would have been looked at were the circumstances leading up to the bad stop what happened was why are the elements not observed before this order was made by nicole rankin to galen carter to bring this person back y brown acted in this circumstance much like mr quinn did i know there is some slight nuances to that but the whole of the evidence shows that it didn't make any sense if they were going to hold mrs brown liable  affidavit that any violations of this policy are strictly employed and it applies to all salaried members of management mr quinn engaged with this customer for a very long time and his probing of the customer was much more involved  the court have to consider what a proper compared or as fair as brown as a member of management as a salaried member of management her functions are different than that of the individuals who are disciplined they are they were hourly employees but more proper compared to miss brown's conduct would be that of quinn it would we aren't we asking whether there was evidence that this investigation and terminations with independent of his cat's paw influence on a bear that's what we're looking at is there material into a back to that yes your honor we believe that  there is and it really comes down to the three items that we've been talking about that it's on the front end when skewing the focus of the investigation from those that executed in order to about stop to miss brown who came and acted as quinn acted after the fact  facts your honor though i would love to long be a feel college i would all also look at g e versus principle in both cases the court determined that the the level of influence by the supervisor or the twenty three years did you have a history of having any other coaching problems before she worked on this to plan here are your that is correct she was the one more for twenty three years the record on a reflects three coaching's within the twelve months prior to the a p s not investigation prior to that she was an employee that rose to the ranks from an hourly cashier to become a manager there are no other coaches in the  statements today they're considered the two are saying are incorrect or are we can't dispute the accuracy of what is in the statement however what we would argue is that  facts as they as they exist as we know them show that holding this brown liable for charging her for the not investigation given those facts doesn't make sense given that mr quinn engaged in the same behavior and the only reason that this technical reading of a p l nine was done by mr a bear to so disciplined this quinn but as he was prime from the outset to focus the investigation and basically found any reason he could that mr hurst for instance airing his argument and the the st place that i really like to direct support attention is to a summary in a email and mr a bear prepared made sixteen executed when the dre bears recommendation and it concerns mrs brown the apparent with difficulty he recommended that she go to the next level coaching i want to use is a progressive disciplinary or at least at the time one that's how i assume the framework is before us and if that's true how could there not be a material dispute the fact is he's the one that reports the incident the need for her firing then he's the one that is said to be be an investigator all of this is within weeks of him knowing that she made a complaint against me that suggests he had not only motive and extraordinary opportunity to influence this outcome that said so to any of those abilities to have complete control over the investigation as opposed to it being an independent investigation sure of course so i think for purposes of this argument john if you were you're correct we have to assume that he had the requisite retaliatory an event but for a cap call theory of causation it's not just animus that he was also the influence what level of influence the exert over the process is mr all that miss brown did violate the policy with they continued to engage the customer and after the customer proceed to the extent mr quinn provided some false information at the front end of the investigation  to the basement mr quinn usually performed the administrative function of collecting statements from the associates that were involved in the bad stop and made a th of two thousand and seventeen maybe he tried to persuade miss rank in to also fast the information that she needed in our statement by her declaration which was submitted the record at the summary judgment stage notes that she refused to she refused to follow the information there's nothing in the to the next level but general is the video even in the record if not your honor but nobody disputes what the video shows as it concerns it brown and that is that when the customer returns to the store she engaged them interrogated further bonded frowned as she asked to speak to the manager and that mr quinn came over and responded to the customer in advance to deescalate the situation he did in time talking to the customer but there is no evidence in the record she violates a below the line she shows up everyone agrees both of them show up after the bad stop with trouble of the customer so the question is she becomes a target and gets terminated he becomes the investigator who tells her she's terminated they're both were numerous the merchandise in the body and she said that when you have items in your bugging you have a receipt that doesn't reflect that many items i'm going to look at your feet and i'm going to ask questions and that's different from what mr clinton policy he becomes the investigator the tells the story it's the differences she asked to look and he you say was given the same items and the block and initial point i would i would disagree with the no your honor the allegation i believe is that mr embury i'm sixteen mr klain was friends with the market manager todd gavia and that somehow that may have worked to influence the investigation it's really it's really more speculative an investigation that then goes to the decision maker is is potentially handled by the person who was trying to evaluate the person l nine investigation a legitimate and not investigation mr quinn would have never been involved in he would have been giving a statement they would have an individual that wasn't a fact witness mr quinn so it was going on yet information that was relevant the fact that they put him in the driver's seat to determine who should give a statement and then receive a statement from them shows and under long for the east the old college that was not and independent investigation but i also want to briefly in my last minute to talk about what the district and such an absence called into question the independence of mr a bear's decision making process which he and long bugged state that the amount of influence that the retaliatory animist played on the investigation is an issue of fa it's not clear that it perhaps it's engaging and is evidence of that is the fact that mr quinn was not also disciplined further evidence of that is that mr quinn felt that he needed and called rankin to live in order to have miss brown disciplined by telling a bear falsely that it was miss deposition it's not a model of clarity that discussion but i can't recall the exact number but that's where that strong ok and then the only other question i had was how would you how would you tell us we should use  deposition statement that he relied on the video that's not in the record what what what is the significance of the video not being in the record there on the fact that he can't comment on what the video shows if it's not in the record as we try to keep the cases moving and you your clients result that we can