business contract respectfully his terminations was not in violation of a clearly made in the public policy based upon an unrelated issue also important largely based upon the emotional reaction to the just charge they related to both counts nothing separate and distinct a truth as it is by the fact that within a couple of months the pla was doing consulting work within six months he had a full time job making just slightly less than what he was making the superior in the him surely more counsel with respect to the there was a report again made so i think it was established that the reporting requirements were done what the plaintiff was trying to make hay out of was that mr straw and another that there should be a recall it so the facts didn't really relate to the reporting requirements because reporting requirements were math one thing public policy issues here and we will ask this food where it was obvious that they should have to have a worker's compensation complaint is obvious they should have done it when we hear fierce testimony by mr du bois have trial that thirty people review the report that was sent hospital was able to use it as a justification soon now we have two issues that are before a jury yes and they had to make a decision based upon credibility and it would appear that they did not believe huskier but your honor as it may have the public policy is going to be determined by this court as a matter of law whether or not this court is going to say there's an exception and what from using it was understood he couldn't really use the word recall is that correct so get this in essence is complaints were code if you will forward a call to action that needed to be taken there was a testimony as to complained your honor i believe their system in the record that they did there's not much in there about it but that actually the focus of the capital is on the one pump that you mention with this right to the white screen but they did reach a conclusion internally aware of the fact that the boy had this mean following because it came out of his deposition filing a stratus terminations and they could have made it more specific and they did not and that was the concern raise an objection because what we were trying to do is prove this is why he was discharged it was because  defamation case and been to her and honestly i think this court should be careful about saying that if it this is granted that you ought to be able to go back and real in the case and  almost at the same time yes there has to be in the minds of the company the idea that we've got to prove this but we also have to disprove the defamation issue and there was no strategy place for their other then we just thought we relied on we relied on this even though that order was it was not and it was not to be it was expected at that point that it was not going to come in some you know to be second guessing truck council strategy at the end we should have real good up when it came as a complete surprise that the judge is going to allow th rely on what happened the next day and you can't rely on a sure it's good that it's in the future ok what about at the time that the judge reversed himself yes there was still instruction possibilities and there also argument by the plaintiffs in their brief or you didn't object then to the instruction that had both in the judgment he's in his opinion very lengthy opinion said i don't see that as a waiver because we had just argued that and we've gone back and forth and back and forth custer's objection to that was clear on the issue of the qualified privilege there had been a plaintiff's instruction that included that originally because under these circumstances when you're surprised there was nothing to it and we're not going to get in i p r it's not going to happen for this wrong i'm getting there was nothing that was contemplated to be given to the jury the the actual law on the regulations will tell them why still we know that the jury was told that he knew what the raskin for but would the regulations be self or part documents and hold we put our the yes sometimes they are so one of the things that came out in the testimony is that there is such thing as a customer notification and that is to the public so that's warning really fine different even it was that we were sent all the communication isn't that correct and now once was there any mention even forget about the word recall of safety but there wasn't a mention of  notes from that investigation we know numbers of people who were interviewed correct yes but we know that the quality department conducted their investigation and after that was terminated it found out that i was in marcia's actions were consistent with the quality statement and in fact i think the record reflects plaintiff testified that he had why did that he would even be included in that  cause when she pulled up she hadn't spoken to this engineer and said no this does not make sense and in fact long after this it was filed that they did not find the root cause and there were still a lot of dangers with the bat some big problem  know he wasn't told that she was told that she was having a bad leadership and just the day before that mr tobias sentiment email this is the type of leadership that we want you to be having i have another issue he brought to their over ninety million dollars in connection with that sale five million dollars in significate terms of serving as a punishment or deterrence and if you were to question her due process i first asked be reprehensible which means there has to be so you know physical harm is here before a crowd it's aberrant and having to go on medication and it has to be intentional that it can't be a mistake here it is clearly intentional relating to the process in your honor of having we're the testimony that said that if there's going to be because you don't put that in the e mail that that's where you're talking about complaints about the product itself it was limited to that it was not talking doesn't that create separate situations it need be the same firing but now we have this situation that is identified internally maybe six to seven months later two to three months later where is the discharge that steve within those twelve people listed for me i have an office of four people and i can't tell if you know you know  that is the defamation claims fall if you a hoe all that counts then we would ask the compensatory damages being reduced because there is insufficient evidence to prove a the think you have we all know the most valuable asset a professional has is his or her reputation and country to try its arguments it was stricken from the record but there was testimony that mr other times prior to the current situation for other jobs yes prior to the kids being in a school he did but he testified in disgrace testified that they specifically wanted to settle down in chicago but these are out working in the area and because of that discharge economic and emotional and that was an error by the court to just presume that the jury didn't understand why we're doing what it made those determinations if we were to decide if we were to agree