of fact in an employment discrimination retaliation case the record is pretty substantial there is to terminations decisions and thus two different causation and elsie's st is the claiming that that terminations decision was based on and caused by discrimination for her race and indian heritage and religious affiliation that was non christian she of which she reasoned believed was was protected activity and discrimination against her in the workplace at this hispanic clinic primarily treating hispanic patients and with his end of that ninety day notice period and so that is a separate set of events to be clear that her kumar dr pooja kumar was working at the kesey clinic and there cite an office manager who was not a physician not a medical provider her name is a lisa merits but she certainly had management authority over the staff including the physicians there in terms of scheduling affecting their privileges and that the terms and conditions of employment and she also participated mrs ms mayor's go also normally participated in employment period was dr charles baron he worked at a different clinic he did not work outside of the kids the clinic dr charles barron according to the defendant page for their brief his position ended aug th two thousand and sixteen and he left access employment at that time the person who took dr barron's position the were performance in any regard and did not function or participate in any employment issues were terminations decisions concerning dr kumar that instead chief medical officer instead doctor was the one who stepped in and took over dr aaron's role as the medical provider supervising and overseeing dr kumar and made the actual termination pediatrician at the access clinic and kathy dr tara hayes's were all hispanic there were other hispanic employees that were referenced gloria result was that a medical assistant who made meetings with an outside vendor and this was important because dr cooper's employment contract just like dr hasan had bonus compensation based on productivity she was also evaluate out her good citizenship there were there was another instance where dr kumar had asked for a day off from elisa maris skull in october th seen and was going to go on vacation that day and then afterwards found that the c access was coming from the downtown area and and lisa maris called said you are no you still have to take vacation you can't come to this important c e o meeting so there is some pieces of circumstantial evidence of how credentialing reviewing the status and the privileges and the qualifications occurred every two years so her initial contract expired in july th teen she worked successfully for two years in june t  that she was a poor that he made the decision of immediate terminations and on september th two thousand and sixteen so that's a short timeframe from approving her based on all the records and then making the decision so what happened he claims he got multiple patient complaints he admitted in his deposition that all of those complaints came through the  am yes we are if there was no identification the cases say that if you document if an employer documents secret complaints about a provider about an employee that can be  issues whatsoever none of them came to our attention she was never emailed any of these written complaints she didn't even know about the safety zone portal till this litigation  none of the patients came to her there is no independent record of a patient complaint it's an email the record we have from access is an email from  snow the office manager who testified and electronic database shows she typed it into the safety zone portal it automatically generated it email to attaches an exhibit that there were a patient surveys and she got eighty percent seventy seven percent positive feedback from patients well that's something separate you never submit in an affidavit from your client denying that the the things that the complaints had to do with never happened yes for example she made it out to david to that effect where she d doctor and doctor kumar explained all she did was sign off on a school physical form which was normal practice she didn't alter anything she does use the existing medical record testimony and she ever said what dr hasan claims she told patients that she you know miss something in somebody's ear sleep that night that that happened she deny that she missed any are about nine hundred employees how many physicians good question your honor i would venture to say over over two hundred if not more all right thank you  so i'd like to take a moment just to to clarify many of the a column inaccuracy is that the plaintiff's counsel a response to some of her questions that was caused by the court for her there is no evidence of any fabrication here of these patient complaints and fact when i asked plaintiff in her deposition what i went through each of these and i asked her specific questions her response was i don't recall i don't recall this i don't recall this because i don't have the medical records so for plaintiff's counsel to now state that the doctor cooter in fact denied any of these happening is simply inaccurate when her best position testimony is clear that she simply does not recall because  she'd have an opportunity to review medical rockers with that being said it is our belief and position that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for access on plaintiff discrimination and retaliation under element number two that she was meeting the performance expectations of her supervisor dr may he at the time of the adverse employment action here that is determination recommendation the doctor you just put forth the axis is human that email dr me yes pacifically states in his term nation recommendation to h r he is recommending determination because clean of bad performance is putting our patients and the organization at risk so at the very moment that he is recommending her terminations dr media is indicating that he believes plainest bad performance is putting the organization and patients that r i know we're compiling information dr cooper plaintiff doesn't do if she doesn't identify the remaining portions of that statement where she says but a provider must speak to her about all of the complaints on treatment and plainest poor treatment and that's what i meant by i know we're compiling information in that context and based on that testimony the district court correctly noted it is a it is a stretch the district court sad to read into that statement that portion of it that money scott was not simply following dr me he is directed to gather information about plaintiff's poor performance versus her actually going out it actively soliciting complaints and when you look at the complaints themselves each and every one of them which we have identified here it always starts out with a patient the mother or the father came in approached d to go on we're going to go on with the other elements of the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting framework and it did it found properly that axis had presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination or so that are the multiple complaints from parents that were brought to access his attention in addition to the the hipaa warning a final hipaa warning that the district court correctly concluded the plaintiff failed to present any here to recommend terminations the district court correctly concluded that dr murray he had testified to that stating of course i'm the only one who came up with this decision i didn't ask for input of anybody prior to making this decision and so the district court correctly concluded that while plaintiff is alleging certain non decision makers making a lad just discriminatory remarks under seven circuit precedent united decision maker those those alleged discriminatory marks do not happen in discrimination unless there is some evidence that these individuals had input into this edition and those discriminatory marks were made at around the time of the decision or simply no evidence of that here in fact plaintiff does not attribute any alleged discriminatory  to the two decision makers here dr misha who made the termination recommendation and then subsequently a lever wryly one december th rendered plaintiff's terminations effective immediately right those of the two decision makers at issue because plaintiff failed to meet her burden now as relates to the retaliation claim we believe the district court correctly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim the district court correctly concluded the pla failed to present any evidence as this as your honor noted just morning there's no evidence of causation right the district court looked at the r t's decision would said in order to meet causation you have to show one cause the other right to protect the teams well it's obvious or should be that but he scott would have told clay would have told riley buffy's charge of discrimination yet the record does not reflect that you spoke the record rather reflects mark scott wasn't anywhere near the house proper pretax argument is not my employer's mistaken by employers than correct a proper pretext argument is my employer is dishonest that reason is dishonest and plaintiff simply quibbles even with dr me he has a recommending terminations or he stays clean of bad performance is putting the your organization of patients at risk and then as relates to miss reilly the information that she gleaned and used to th miss riley placed a security guard at the entrance of the county facility based on what she perceived to be plaintiff threat after i leave what happens if this place blows up so with that your honor that position that he never observed or no one else has ever observed in her nobody ever followed up if they honestly believe that there was an issue they didn't restrict or privileges they didn't observe it in follow up they didn't verify