sure that it's really that much out of the norm what i can say because i represent federal employees and executive agencies where we had the e e o c and the m s p it would not take fourteen years to get to this point it's we are thrilled to be here we are thrilled to be presenting her arguments to somebody for at least for the first time it's outside the g a o and i would note in this regard that the personnel appeals board is supposed to be independent but the fact  proceedings on wines previously con played although no not yet definitely determined is no evidence whatsoever because our first of all your honor i would respectfully note i don't think that was the actual whole thing i the case here because miss polly hinted had not only the nexus of time but she also had proof she had contradicted all of the reasons that the agency kept coming up with to explain away what they did c investigator she testified in one deposition she spoke to her both she spoke to the attorneys in both cases multiple times and she also spoke to the g a o attorneys before the hearing that without pay as rather than work on weapons were so that shows the extent to how severely she felt she could not work in a s m but that does not change the fact that as a federal employee she could have had to pay until they made the piri decision to create this policy but am i remembering right that you just correct me that you don't have evidence that with possibly one exception they just haven't done this on other occasions either we don't have if that's the right email can you say what you want to say  i had no idea that these cases were going on or that mr only and it wasn't brought in them but she is named right under him as one of the people who's going to be called so i just his reason w he didn't have that knowledge to claim that he didn't have any knowledge is wrong this is the least one said everybody in the office now know it is not your honor he said there how many people there's a total of seventy people in the dan seven zero ye knew that she was in some way supporting a discrimination claim don't you have to find some indication in this e mail that on the assumption he read it he would take that away from him this isn't the lynch pin your argument that this was two witnesses for both sides seems to be all rebutted by the paragraph that begins because petitioners council will present particulars witnesses first all i know for sure is in the e e o c process if department of energy is that offending party it is obliged to produce every employee whether it's for the plaintiff or the defendant they are obliged to produce them it in any event the very you your honor she sobbed in their offices that day saying i don't have anything good to say about them this is going to ruin my career please don't make me testify that's what happened and this is how she was treated for i would like to reserve the amount of and when it permitted her to go and work at the state department but asked her to use the mechanism of leave without pay and a direct appointment through the state department rather than you feeling her there as a legislative branch jail employee working state department would become that the paying and the well it would depend on the type of detail but what would not change would be that jail would have one of its own employees serving in its combat in the person's capacity as a geo employee working in executive branch agency the g a o would do audit work on or potentially could do audit work on it in the future and when you really look back and but you're not answering my mr breaux head indicated to her that she was being placed in ask him and as mrs only hinted has stated in her own petition before the judge before the personal appeals court he told her in april of two thousand and one that that decision was firm so  working on kept time as i understand your opposing counsel is argument it seems regarding that e mail it seems to be that it indicates that he was testifying falsely when he years later said he didn't even know she was involved in the case it's not well i certainly am not aware of any testimony where he stated that in april of two thousand and one he'd heard of that i mean that he never knew at any time  my understanding of his testimony is that when i was making these decisions now i didn't know about them whereas that in the record i'm afraid i can't give you a direct cite to what i'm i can look for it after and provide to the participation in that case and i'll note that that case has absolutely nothing to do with mr drew his name is not mentioned anywhere in the petition that were filed in that case or in the personal kills were decision in that case which is name is never mentioned in w and team which is called the defense acquisitions group and she began making these assertions in the early ninety's when mr brewer was still a member of the denver office and what was spoiling and has testified is that every time she had a conversation with mr breaux she would bring those same concerns up over and over again what else is undisputed the record is that mr brewer left the denver office in one nine hundred ninety seven moved to jail headquarters in a completely different capacity and then in two for fresh he took her out of the da group and let her do international work and what was for him to have the court believe is that mr brewer would be the same actor who took her out what she claimed to be a any conversation with him in the few months leading up to that april placement decision and then would suddenly decide well now i'm going to retaliate against you based solely on my knowledge of these st opposing counsel in this whole hidden because they have presented this all along as if there is some kind of free standing right for federal employees who don't like the work that they're doing at their own agency to be able to simply move on to another federal agency while maintaining their own job at the other agency under the aegis of the detail and what happened here was that missile hitting came to jail and said that she didn't want to do this work and yes now and  employ working executive branch agency even though there's a conflict of interest there and if jail were truly motivated to retaliate if it said no that would have ended that was that would be the simple response to jail wanted to retaliate against her but that's not been g a o did it david walker the comptroller general jean de there who is now the comptroller general and the executive committee went out of their way to try to accommodate miss foley when they came up with the idea well you know what we have this concern about doing telling our employees certain details to executive branch agencies so to mitigate against that concern we will let you take leave without pay we'll let you go and work in as a temporary direct appointee of the state department and then when yours over come back off and leave without pay and you know you can continue with your job and g a o this is unquestionably an act of assistan confirmed that to his knowledge no no one had ever done   military work as opposed to civilian work and why couldn't she have just accommodated her and that regard and first what mr brewer has explained was that he had to make a determination based on what  she was told that there was no civilian work at the time available to her to perform that's geos legitimate notice from a trade reason and never produced a shred of evidence undercutting that there actually was other work that she could have working under a broad umbrella of different types of work and there might be different types of work that come up at different times but what has been the records at the time she was your ning and assume that's the kind of work the g a o had available to her  teams this is you know we're talking at most a year and if you don't appreciate this thing but certainly you have an opportunity to change that down the road this is not a life sentence of military work and in fact mr boyd and did pursue other types of work in board and year there was clearly was a quorum there were four judges who actively participated in the in the decision it was a two to split and given that the fifth member of the board had already ruled in it was favor that creates a three to decision even even if it was to two without participation i believe it exactly saw that recently in the  whim in this one case it should have presented a role furthermore it should given the administrative judge the opportunity to participate in the decision because all four of the other panel members should because you think so no your hon think this judge would have been better educated about the facts and not made the inference that i do want to point out that with respect to your times so you need to read thank you your honor everything the government is arguing that someone from pursuing a complaint can be considered retaliatory action leave without pay meant yes she was getting a paycheck but she didn't have tenure in her position for that time she did not get her health benefits paid she didn't get any of the benefits and she wasn't technically on the rules or accruing any benefits for that entire year which is critical for example in a recession so it was in the outer section we respectfully request that you would find in her favor and at least give her the hearing that she has been seeking for fourteen years thank you