court construed factual issues in in in a latent more favorable to the moving parties as opposed to to to my client there were various credibility determinations that appear to have been made there were other other facts that were not really consider that were certainly relevant to the to the finding sink inclusions reached by the by the district court well you have biggest fish the biggest issue  an investigation there were mention of of possible grounds for her suspension in and of her employment none of which were initial conversation the very morning after this incident occurred it mr hatch in his deposition states that there were there was no specification as to what she had done wrong in the situation in the district court seem to think that just miss million's awareness of her involvement in this situation and i think what you just referred to as far as what you said about hatch is saying that he had gotten a complaint from a parent about the first of all dr till the superintendent of complaint county board of education in his deposition he specifically said that that act in and of itself would be insufficient to justify her terminations the act of sending a student in sure so the sort of thing that happens every day in miss mcmillan was she was dragged into the situation unwillingly or unwittingly at least she was contacted by ms brown instead of ms brown contacting administr she reaches out to miss mcmillan who comes up is explained what's going on in the student volunteers this information and they just they make this the student offers to go in and get the whatever it was that in there that was in it's only miss million's sofa awareness apparently which i don't think that's what the process requires and i don't think that certainly what the what the statute in place your requires in terms of what did she do wrong what the parents son had allowed to go get medication which would upset me pretty badly my child who allow a wound or encouraged or whatever to be to be placed in that situation no explained why she believed he was incorrect it did there didn't seem to be a point at which she had she was unaware oh what she was facing and while well i i'm a do beg to differ your honor just again being aware knowledge trying to address all the different issues that you brought up in there but just being aware of the scenario there are she was she was told that her job was doomed but there was no and she never believed that sincerely she never believed that and that's in the record as well she was never given a reason as to why her job was in jeopardy to the question to your suggestion that she had no awareness of why her job was in jeopardy after she was told it was well well your honor there was never any indication to her that that was the why that was mentioned to her by hatch that appear it was upset that parents a parent's get upset about a lot of things that aren't necessarily justify what she knew to be told that it was a violation there were some policy or rule that she violated by sending that student into the classroom but there's nothing in the record to suggest that that is in fact other than this casual morning after a conversation with principal had to acknowledge that he didn't really get into the details or anything he just mentions that they got this call from a teacher in the ass miss i think on on page six hundred six zero one of the appendix a principal had just testimony he then just secured the classroom to go prepare statement which she did and so there were and as i was mentioning a minute ago there were various other people who had the same well brown did the exact same thing miss brown did not lose her job is that allegation and again i'm trying to stay away from here it's of the allegation which you seem to be you keep trying to go back to the allegation was that miss brown testimony regarding the administrative conference in a white most favorable to the defendants miss mcmillan was only given an opportunity to explain her version of events dr til then restated reiterated what she had just told him make  had it correct in she said no that's not that's not right but at no time did he say that he was presenting to her contradictory evidence or that other people had told him something different she was never confronted with record you just in your explanation to me it still related his understanding of the situation which differed from her based on what she had just told him so he was trying to make sure he had it clear what she was saying he tried to restate what she had just said so he could make sure he understood the timeline and then he didn't restate it correctly to her so she then tolbert again to make sure he got it right but at no time was that based on an understanding that he was saying we have contradictory evidence we have her to the contrary or confronted her with it and in accuracy or something that is inconsistent with w any other witnesses have said she was never given the opportunity to confront any witnesses but much less know what any other witnesses who may have said something contradictory to what she said she never had an opportunity to address any of those  wants to make sure he has it right she says no that's not right but not not addressing contradictory statements from other people what she had tried to explain previously the first time maybe it wasn't she didn't  maybe she didn't explain it as clearly as she would have why but she had an opportunity to you know clarify what she had said but at no time does the record support that she understood or believe that she was confronting her with contradictory did she ever seek any kind of clarification or ask for additional ditch do anything to introduce parity into a situation that  she says it is unclear well she trusted throughout this process your honour's that they were going to figure this thing out she never believed she did anything wrong in the handling of the situation she she trusted that she came in she told them what happened they didn't tell her and you mentioned that they were looking at to whether as to whether or not there were grounds which suggests that they didn't know whether there were  grounds at that point so she could not have been made aware of the grounds of they were still trying to figure out whether they existed in so we're just not she's clearly told the grounds what you're saying is they didn't point to done wrong what violation of any rule or policy she had committed you know why wouldn't the principal telling you i have a complaint from a parent's concern that you put her son in trouble or possible trouble and she understood what the circumstances were i guess i just don't understand what at that point in the process is i think due process requires a specification of the charges what did you do wrong so that you can respond and defend yourself she was never told beyond in like i said before and no you don't get back to the disputes a fact but there were at least there was certainly one other teacher involved who did the same thing that she did brown knew exactly that mark brown agreed that the student go in just the same in the evidence before the court is that  fact that the parent called in in made a complaint actually the complaint in the record the complaint was about that ministry or the written complaint in the record is not says that it was a minister principal a male assistant principal the the complaint was about so there's not any in a written report that i have seen that i can recall being anywhere in the record about somebody complaining about ms mcmillan other than i think hatch's report about the conversation that he had but you know that is that is in the moment after she heard nothing else about the situation for a moment she at one point just asked hatche not until after a month she continued to work for nearly another month without hearing a word about this after she submitted her written statement you know she turned in she said had just missed mr hatch just don't have the ball medication that was recovered gave it to him the very next morning and then nothing more about it nothing more until she gets handed liver on and about a month later she's working all this time period i want to teach or do what she loves it and she's handed this letter that doesn't specify anything about what she did while underway well she provided a written statement so i think there's some awareness of them looking into what was going on with this whole situation but  but still there was no or even in the written letter that she got on may twenty one it was never anything specified about what she did wrong at the ministry of conference they never told her what she did wrong to has dr  whatsoever of this administrative conference there was never any writing put in place the statute clearly requires after he makes a determination that he's going to recommend dismissal which he said he had done after the administrative credibility against the credibility of other sources who gave her to reoccur i don't know doesn't say contradictory accounts if i remember correctly she did as a general understanding she understood that sure they're going to talk to other people and he's going to figure out what she had not been confronted with anything contradictory or inaccurate that she had said that never happened in the administrative conference so yeah i think it's fair anybody would assume if there is this investigation going on that there's going to be some yeah they're going to consider all the different witnesses but in this case yeah she sure she figured she was going to talk to other people and she didn't think there was anything that was going to come out of this that was going to here's where we're going to handle this the new one ford unfortunately there was finger pointing blame had to be allocated and she got railroaded into resigning without being told ever what she did wrong and without a the school board following the very clear specific provisions in the statute that are clearly intended to follow and provide due process rights to tenured teachers and i bet i've gone over my time i think  our contract questions are there their contract and due process your honor and that's that's where you know if we had if we had known when we filed this complaint that the the school all the generic phrases referenced and that we confirmed at the thirty six deposition these were the that this all the school all of these pretty procedures that those were incorporated into her contract we would have included the contract one week we certainly specify that they breached it by not following the procedures so we have all the allegations in there but we just we just didn't include the actual breach of contract which was produced in discovery in june thirty six happened first of problem is if she had she knew exactly what they thought she had done wrong the question isn't whether he was wrong the question is she knew what while her job was on the line if she had an opportunity to respond to  well your honor process we're at large doesn't seem to need to require more if one quick point on that be what they ultimately in as this this didn't come out until this l mr or misstatement of the facts that's what they've decided let her go on it wasn't the fact that she in miss brown sent this student into the bathroom after he volunteered to go see if the cough medicine was still there that's not why they let her go but she had no notice of anything or anything that was necessarily wrong about it what she needed to specifically address in her meeting with them to be able to say this is why i did it this is exactly what happened there was not any and a awareness of that so that she could really drill down on what they were focused in on what they viewed as important terms of her alleged wrongdoing she never had and meaningful opportunity to defend herself  and i think considering the facts in the light most favorable to her in terms of that administrative conference and what was said i don't think it's a it's fair at summary judgment stage i think a reasonable jury could say well she cheat they didn't confront her with anything contradictory or  anything that she had done wrong they were just too it was just restating to her to make sure she got right what she had just said this wasn't a well why did you do this or you know there's this conflict here in the testimony or this this the year before and it was still the medicine cabinet but you know i just think due process requires more than this very brief encounter where she's at the very beginning of the investigation where she is asked to go thank your honor smith please the court your hours the fundamental thread that runs throughout this case is whether mr miller was denied the opportunity to make a free and informed choice and judge floyd us the correct question in my view on the nine hundred eighty three claim and that is because this factual situation was a resignation not a terminations and process in that pre term anation process what we have here is a voluntary resignation by mr mcmillan and respectfully your honor i believe that of the outcome of this case is controlled by this court's determinations in the stone case and also riccio versus county of fairfax where simone wrong about that i can s are you aware of any contradictory evidence that was going to be or was used against the appelle during the process you went through  let me make sure i'm understanding your question correctly if we're going back to the discussion between council judge and primarily ok there was your honor and during the months that intervened between the hatch the principle was involved this system principals was involved and dr locklear who's the director of h or superintendent of h or obtained statements reviewed the various elements of that and ult ely in consultation with dr till each to the conclusion that they needed to bring mr mcmillan in under the very serious pretense of we're going to discuss whether or not you were going to lose your job so yes there wasn't there was investigation done and the facts underlie do a stablished that the assistant principal leith and mcmillan have a differing set are and the fender has been mixed with sprite and a couple of other ingredients to make a street cocktail yes i know it is your honor and these young men were mixing it in the ba she was told that at least had contradicted her e mailed statement it was an e mail statement by macmillan which says i told lee's everything basically lisa says that's not true she did not tell me about z now to answer your question specifically in the light most favorable to my mcmillan she was not privy to that contradictory evidence however it doesn't matter in this case and frankly it doesn't matter whether you agree that this was a voluntary resignation or whether you get past the voluntariness of the resignation and get to a due process analysis under letterman but just going back to the resignation because i think this is significant there's absolutely no question this case the the document where she signed is at the very end of the appendix just before the district court's order where she voluntarily resigned and to talk about her testimony on that she testified beginning in the testimony runs for several pages but beginning it j a two thirteen regarding the meeting on five twenty five  her immediate reaction was my heart sank and i asked about letters of recommendation then i was told dr locklear said in lieu of dismissal you could resign and i signed the resignation and the very next question in the deposition was when work why why her answer because to me a letter of resignation looked better than a letter of being dismissed i felt i had a better chance of seeking employment elsewhere and then on j two fifteen she question was did you believe that resigning gave you the best chance of being able to teach elsewhere i did is that why you chose to resign yes it is well then proposition obviously the fact that she did but there it's not just that the decision was completely without pressure but your honor the court's this court's opinions in stone and riccio acknowledge the fact that almost always when you're in the situation you're going to have pressure you know there's no pressure if you're not at risk of losing your job so the and the courts have made it very clear that tough decision of hey i'm going to get fired meeting that referenced in those pages deals with she was given a lateral five twenty one that clearly said your risk of losing your job and gave her specific reference to the north carolina statute which she admits she never went to look up but she came and she was told we want to hear your side of the story then dr til reciting what he had learned meaning what law clears investigation  turned up and miss mcmillan disagreed with it which assuming that you get past voluntary resignation piece which the district court did and just go to a pure due process analysis it  clearly meets a due process analysis under the law it was absolutely an opportunity to be heard no question not correct and she knew what the issues were this was she was not hijacked there was of you that the employer isn't obligated to open up and give everything that's in their file two specifically the radio versus canada fairfax case and also the linton versus frederick county case both cited in the materials and also believe cited in the discourse order make it clear that the minimum is just gregory noted the minimum test of due process this isn't a full criminal hearing this isn't a she wasn't accused of a crime and she had not been charged this was you're looking at the limited property right in public employment as a teacher and what a lot of notes set forth is a very basic mill makes it clear and there's other cases that are cited in the materials briefs that make it clear that the the standard that's involved in a state teacher who has tenure which was the facts of the lateral case is minimal federal we're bringing in one nine hundred eighty three claim as opposed to having sued state court specifically just for breach of contract for example and not having has not i believe numbered subsections so it's j want j to j so forth and then it goes all the way through h and in the letter they said the statute prints these j and then the next print sees one hyphen through h and in any event i think it's as your arsenal a priority i'm a distinction without a difference for the simple reason that anyone who opens that statue which they did give the correct store site is then presented with the entire stage so that the letter gave the correct statute in its form that that would have enabled anyone even a either and i think in in most macmillan's own testimony she says multiple places that block lawyer and hatch commented on the fact that she does have a heart and she is trying to look out for the best interests of students but your honors respectfully not all folks with good intentions ultimately make great choices and what and what happens if we decide to skate all that she voluntarily  opinion but that document is her file and it shows clearly that she resigned and interestingly it shows she resigned for other reasons it doesn't even so that she resigned to avoid terminations so her  resignation and the analysis so forth and stone about whether it was voluntary or involuntary which i haven't gotten here to today but in the three and a half minutes left if i could go very holistically at the fundamental question of what she did not the opportunity to make a free and informed choice and as we've discussed here today both with co counsel and my so in multiple places  in her deposition in her deposition as where are the court go in this de novo review she was aware after talking with facts that her job was at risk she was aware of talking to social worker that this was a serious issue there is contrary to what counsel said there was there's discussion in her deposition about her being a buzz in the school about what was going on with her during that intervening month on may twenty first she was handed the letter that said this is a serious as we're potentially terminating your employment she understood that the meeting was to discuss whether grounds exist to terminate employment after the meeting she understood it was considering it and  no time was she pressured in the record shows that at one point top they tried to schedule a meeting and she said that's not good for making a move it later and i said fine there 's several cases from this district which show coersion in the form of a failure of that you've got him pinned in a room and they say hey i'd like to talk with lawyer i want to talk to my union representative and the people declined while were in the room no evidence of that whatsoever that the record is very clear that likelier and till answer to questions as she had them unfortunately with the record makes very very clear in multiple admissions in her deposition is that she did not do anything in her month to find out anything she didn't talk to a lawyer she didn't talk to her association of educators folks she didn't talk to anyone to school she didn't do basic research in terms of just reading room contract or reading the employee handbook all of which contain this information so under the stern test clearly there was no and the other subset of cases deals with misrepresentation and in the minute i have left very quickly on that the this record is replete with her failure  reasonably that justify that this court upholding the district court's finding that there was no reasonable or just fobbed reliance which guts the misrepresentation piece understand and it also deals with the negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation claims that were the other things pled so with respect miss mcmillan concededly is a very wonderful person who cared in her heart she made a mistake ultimately she went there was evidence created she had the opportunity to be heard she was heard she was informed that she was going to be terminated and she made the voluntary decision to resign in lieu of being terminated and that's what this case was about and respectfully your honor we would ask that this court upholding the district court's grant of summary judgment on all claims thank you very much discussed in our brief we certainly did at the lower court level as that issue was being addressed and was certainly an issue but it was not argued in briefed in this case and as the court stated it's an opinion we do not address that here in the court simply proceeded to address the due process issue he in it in this case there there is a you know what i'm happy to address more the voluntary resignation issue but the it and it kind of ties into something green with the with the reasonable reliance but in this situation though there was in i understand that if she was mitch it was mentioned to her in the immediate aftermath there all this could affect your job and hatch commented that principal hatch commented that he was concerned about the media getting wind of this and who knows what the thought process and it was when he when hatch mentioned that her job could be in jeopardy he didn't say he didn't elaborate on that other than commenting about the media's going to get hold of this in this is this may be a problem and he just her to go write her statement now in terms of the you know the suing month after she after she provided her statement and it is for as the  notice what she knew about she did and as you can count as counsel conceded she did not know about any of the contradictory evidence that had been gathered that was simply not brought up with her in old smoothly though that is what led to her the decision to terminate her she was never made aware of that and you have an opportunity to address those that contradictory testimony which  we take very serious issue with in terms of what some of those allegations are those are very very much disputed facts in terms of what the vice principal lead said so that is a very much contested issue of fact in in  so you know there's another a carpenter a teacher ms carpenter actually stood lookout for student a as he went back into the bathroom so you have two other teachers with the same knowledge and information about the student going into the bathroom to recover this medication and as to point out that alone was not sufficient begin  person who lost her job and so it necessarily based on the facts before the court had to do with something other then that initial decision that she and brown made to respond affirmatively to the students issues so i think that is where the notice of what the allegations are against her and how the reference to this vague statute in the may twenty one letter that doesn't reference the incident that yes sure she knew it had to do with this situation but it didn't say anything that she had done wrong it didn't specify any type of particular rule or procedure i think if you're going to give the benefit of the doubt to the nonexistent statute that was cited trying to figure out which one they meant to refer to it was such other rules and regulations as the school board in applause which is pretty much meaningless without specifying which warn and what she violated and so there was not there is no meaningful opportunity to defend yourself to address allegations of wrongdoing if you don't know what they are and if there is this assumption that well you know what you did you should've you should've known better and just assume that i mean that's not what due process is about it's about making the person who's accused of some sort of wrongdoing away or what they actually did so they get a fair opportunity to address it now the procedures to which she wasn't titled very detailed written notice to to to miss mcmillan regarding what her rights were what she had done wrong what are the specific rounds they're supposed to give her a copy of the statute  and then she has a right to to administrative hearing at which there is an exchange of evidence and documents that each side intends to produce or use at the hearing witness list that sort of thing she was entitled to all that but there was no discussion no mention made this all happened very quickly in the course of she gets handed over the letter on monday afternoon it ministry of conferences tuesday afternoon friday she's called in to dr la clippers office he said he's made his decision it's final gave her the impression she had two choices you have to you're going to be fired or you have to resign if you ever want to continue teaching children again and continue to do great things for children you you need to resign because decisions final that's what the record reflects her he led her to believe that this was a done deal when he did not have the authority to terminate her employment he only had the authority to recommend her dismissal and then upon that recommendation provide all this information about her rights which was never explained to her the onus is on the school board to inform her the burn is not on her a teacher of twenty plus years has not been in trouble  working with kids and the burden is not on her try to you know interpret what this what her legal rights and what her legal responsibilities are in a situation such as that i don't know many of us even those of us well connected in the legal community who could maybe get an appointment with an attorney on three days notice part of being called into this meeting with lochley where he made these false statements and misrepresentations to her upon which she replied he is the associate superintendent of human resources if she can't trust him who can she trust he had the tender resignation form pre filled out dated for that very day and made it appear to her that she had no choice other than to sign that day if she wanted to continue her life's work of teaching or working with students so i think it was there is ample evidence that it was reasonable for her the circumstances i think a reasonable jury who's not an h r professional who's not an attorney in say under these circumstances he sure was reasonable for her to do what she did into not go lawyer up the day after it administrative hearing were there simply asking her questions about what happened and she's not being confronted with anything wrong or contradictory that she necessarily did that's the evidence before the court in there were these facts were all construed in a light most favorable to the moving parties not ms mcmillan so i believe i am i'm out of time but thank you your