indefinite suspension pending an investigation of alleged misconduct that out of creating this hurdle for my client to get notice amounts to a legal interference  to argue that look we didn't know that your client was seeking to take some kind of unpaid medical even we thought instead that he was requesting paid vacation and so that's why we didn't we never were because they would have fired him for other reasons before he could have taken before he wanted to take leave corruption defense and so even assuming that all of the all these notices issues turned out in your favor it seems to me the district court's holding was you haven't established that he wasn't that he was fired for requesting to leave the records of this record says is open to only one conclusion which is that he was subordinates they both say yes content was put on the television but those those affidavits are so big in india us they don't say for example neither of them say we put the video on the television for the purpose of watching t v and not one of the other things that's really important is the wind never tested the t v to see whether a need to repair or not well but they should now you're right no you're arguing now you're making a jury argument which i take it you're you're you're arguing you're entitled to make the question is what creates an issue of fact on case but what they didn't tell you in that case is if the facts are completely different in the barnett case an employee was put on suspension if she had missed this response as mentioned and then they later she requested a player there in her deposition she lied to the employer and then the employer holder and said i'm we know you're lying we're going to terminate you we're not allow you to resign and she resigned she resigned prior to the five day notice period runny that's not what happened in this case a five year period if i had a period ran before my client was terminated my client suffer termination justify or negative factor in and adverse employment decision and what the district court found in its sort summary judgment order was that the plaintiffs mr reynolds failed to show that there was a negative factor used for his leaving request whether it was considered and half a one million request or a vacation leave request or some other type of leave request there was simply nothing there other than the hofmann the supervisors were aware of my possible need for surgery for months there's no detail in there whatsoever about whether mr rouse actually made them aware when he made them aware what were the circumstances whether they required some follow up or a confirmation as he later contends in his brief there's just nothing there and then what's interesting is in that same affidavit later and this is on page seventy nine of the record in peril have six teams he says and i'm quoting if i hadn't asked to leave after being put on suspension and he goes on to say he doubts he would have been treated more harshly disciplinary wise then his subordinate employees and that's an important distinction because if as mr in his declaration his supervisors were put on notice of a possible need for leave for months beforehand that undermines his temporal proximity argument because  underlines it we're not when we're dealing with some read judgment we're not dealing with undermining or we're putting stuff on scales we're trying to figure out whether or not any reasonable juror could find that it was a negative factor and so what i'm interested in is let's assume that the prior prior notice whatever it was and the and the e mail were sufficient to put your client  video for half an hour i had a good explanation for it i was put on suspension while they investigated it i requested leave again maybe it's for the st time and then i get fired why doesn't that create a fact question about whether or not it was his request for leave was a factor in this or because it doesn't he doesn't offer anything to support that in terms of a lever question as other i must say that this termination doesn't strike me as gross misspeak misconduct understand it's your right to fire employees who whatever reason you want he says i was testing the video system i watch something for half an hour and that's what he says you may be wrong but why shouldn't some but why doesn't the finder of fact get to determine whether that was just a pretext because they need to because the court would need to determine is the court determined that the leave request was a negative factor in the decision to terminate mr rouse wants to focus on the merits of the term a nation and the investigation and the issue is that's misguided what needs to be focused upon is he had already conduct committed pardon me the alleged misconduct before he was suspended and before his e mail came in asking for the vacation leave the nest occasion was already in progress for the misconduct it's not enough to say that with determination in his opinion wasn't proper in the sense of there wasn't enough for the punishment didn't fit the crime his obligation to overcome suffering judgment is just show that his belief or question was used as a negative factor and there is nothing in the record at all even in his affidavit in any of the briefing in any of the discovery that says that his supervisors ever express any negative reaction in a mosque city or  to his requests for leave whenever it was made and the cases that we've cited particularly the matthews case that comes out of arizona says mere knowledge of someone's ethically activity or  is not enough to carry your whole case and that's what mr rouse is arguing here and the matthews case that we cite in our brief had said you've got a note you toward something more and that's what the district court found was on that your honor would be in response to that no because even if you were to use traditional notions of pretext to overcome pretexts you've got to provide specific evidence of why you think it was pretextual and just because he believes that his explanation should have been worthy of more credence than the wind investigation gave it is not enough he's got to come forth with specific evidence in the title nd context you have to have title seven requires specific added in pretax and i would argue that that's the same here for using a pretext analogy butting in this case we're easing the negative factor at the negative factors the district court correctly found was there's no evidence that was put forth by mr rouse to suggest that there was any supervisory animosity toward him of the circumstances it's about a jury question i mean you know he says he gave notice months before maybe it wasn't great notice but he says he gave notice there's a tribal issue of fact you know he you know he worked there forty years and he was a minute late would your answer be the same my answer would be the same under those facts because again we're dealing with a very narrow framework here for an f a milling interference claim now perhaps  correct but but the issue is there's a complete absence of evidentiary support to show or even tend to indicate that the decision about terminations was influenced or tainted or in any way affected by a request for leave can i ask a question on a separate topic and that's the notice issue that mr ross raised which if i can rephrase it for him i'm sure he could do it better  to do it better goes like this focusing only on the e mail you know at that point you should have known i was requesting time off to get an operation you should have given me you effect but you never did what's your response well i think you know the issue as we every reason to the issue is that there's been no prejudice dear just given the timeline of events because what mr r essentially arguing in terms of the lack of notice is he takes issue with the fact that his supervisor didn't direct him to win a family rd party administrator basic to commence the leave and he says by not doing that the required notices were not furnished and as we posed in our in our brief it wouldn't be any different and certainly would not have prejudice even if the supervisor had directed him to be sick because what would have happened as what happened in two thousand and thirteen when he previously took after millie leave and was for mil year with the basic process is they are the ones who generate all the required notices and quitting a certification of health care provider they would have in the ordinary courts giving him time fifteen calendar days under the estimate to get his certification completed from his health care provider and him in the meanwhile the timeline doesn't bear out his argument of prejudice because if mr rouse contention the notices were duped by july th and let's say he had them in hand by july th so there was no notice issue two days later the wind terminated him and he goes to great lengths saying well if i had known at the time i requested the leave that my employment was in jeopardy or that i was taking it seriously because he wasn't taking it seriously he didn't really think this was an issue then he would have changed his circumstances but the fact is he wouldn't change his circumstances because we have in the record the fact that basic only deals with us in the way they would have no knowledge of his employment status in terms of being on suspension pending investigation or possibly under threat of terminations so they would have in the ordinary course given him the notices and he would have gone on his merry way to get them completed and what would have happened is two days later by the th of july he would have been terminated and that would not that would not have forty anything for an upcoming surgery in early august or his planned time starting on august rd so our position in response to that argument is even if you claim that you were improperly denied notice you were not prejudiced and when you're not prejudiced under that timeline of events that i just stated the supreme court said in the ragsdale case necessarily violation particularly requirement of notice is not actionable in that case it was a designation notice unless the employee is prejudiced and as the district correctly found here there was no prejudice occasion to mr rouse in these circumstances oath that my client was denied notice his death that he was not told to contact basically only because he had been put on suspension date condition nobody is going to come forward from there we fired him because he requested f m l a we have to look i think is one of the justices that we have to look at the big picture nobody has asked me when i wish the