we've chosen three cases with all very simple procedural postures today because it's going to start a clean that is friday so i definitely let's get started st with charles career and i represent the appellant's greg reed and you are in this case because of the limited time i'm going to limit my argument to three particular items of employees reagan livingston because she complained about sexual harassment took adverse actions against her family members now as the th circuit is  acts come in an infinite variety and so the question we have to decide here is whether or not retaliatory acts taken against an employer harm to a non employee  makes that non employee an agreed individual within the meaning of title seven and if anti retaliation provisions to help us in that way of course have the decision  thomson from the supreme court but i believe we need to start before then we need to start with the supreme court's decision in burlington northern versus wife because they're the supreme court concluded that the anti retaliation provisions of title seven does not confine the actions or hundreds it forbids to those that are related to employment or current the workplace so the courts recognize that retaliatory attack that an employer can engage in retaliatory act outside of the workplace and those harms can occur outside the workplace decides to retaliate against an employer who files a charge discrimination by firing employees fiance has was the case  carnes and it's interesting these cases and of course we have to rely on them but the question is the supreme court justice scalia i believe writing said we don't know how far we're going to extend this thing is against your position it's not binding it's the th circuit but some of what indicates that the being rd party this goes way beyond what the retaliation provision within in vision would cover how i saying you disagree with them and could you and the absurd result the justice scalia knows and thompson about a stockholder because there is a broad range of harms that occur in the middle and one of the ways to help employer who retaliate against its own employees by taking an adverse action against a rd party has harmed that rd party as a means of retaliating against its own employee and that if indeed a member in thomson the supreme court said that mister read a lot of i'm sorry who was the person who filed the charge she had a good retaliation claim based upon the firing of her fiance so she could bring a retaliation claim because the firing of him but can she collect for the harm suffered by him and it's not clear that she can get the back pay that he lost by being fired even though the act of retaliation was directed at him so the question is how do we allow employers to impose harm on rd parties as a means of retaliation against their employee without any consequences so this isn't a situation where we've got some ripples down the road like the stock to retaliate against mr livingston is to burn down her family's home according to susan that would be fine that her family members would have no cause of action other than perhaps support but no title seven cause of action against the bank for doing that then let me ask you this we're talking about ripple one part of your argument is that your client the banks a great deal of money they were in the fall the bank tried to collect on the money as banks often will do and i guess your argument would be that if you owe a lot of money to the bank you can't pay it's the bes strategy that is to get a relative or have that relative get fired and see the company and then it seems to me what you're saying is sort of the get out of jail free card then you don't have to pay your money back does that make you walking around sense to you at all well that would make any sense but that's not the facts in this case those are the facts that marion bank claims are correct but the facts are grave toll are did have a line of credit with the bank he was not in default in that line of credit that his daughter gets fired for complaining internally for sexual harassment soon thereafter great toll are and his wife go to speak to the bank saying you really need to do an investigation of this and keep my daughter's insurance at least they at that point say don't we have business with you a clear suggestion that if his daughter proceeds with a charge they will cut off business they then cut off his business and then a substantial period of time after that is when greg toler was unable to pay his debts in part because the bank has cut off his bank's response to him well one he was not an employer in a bank as it's very clear he had a practice so the question is whether one client can limit the lawyers practice in another area that would be a question that's to whether any lawyer would let a client limit their practice but that's not what happened here of course because the bank continued to use mr pole art to close  some work he was doing with them and indeed has no time until after the litigation started is there any case in that they were concerned about the scope of sr tollers practice or whether he was representing his daughter there is certainly a question dispute as to whether when mr tovar and his wife showed up at the bank to plead their daughter's case whether he was there and let me say we obviously we don't have before us what actually occurred but for purposes of argument let's say that his daughter's allegations were true i certainly understand his desire of the father to be there and help his daughter but i think i can also see how the how the bank would see their lawyer interactions with them as an adverse father even if he wasn't his daughter's attorney i can see how they would see that interaction as not productive to the decide you're going to sue or get involved in suing that client i think most lawyers understand something has to give why i don't think there's any expectation that you can be suing a client on another matter at the same time that you're representing the client on a different matter not that that that is something that typically relationship you just don't do absolutely and that's why mr toller does not represent his daughter in the litigation  other counsel in the meeting he she tells them almost threatens them you know legal action coming that sounds like a person who is a lawyer saying something the way a lawyer might say something that may but talking like a lawyer does is being he's there as a lawyer but that goes also to whether that is actually what motivated them and that is wh didn't they have reason to believe that he was representing is order we don't know we have i say my time is finished we know that this issue about representation came up much later initially they said they stopped using him because he had defaulted on his loans and that of course it's false but even if that was their concern it does not explain why then they kept him off the list of attorneys who were approved to do closings for other individuals not the bank and that it's one thing to say i don't want you  doing my work because you're adverse to us but to then say and i don't think you should be allowed to do any work for any of my customers who may be trying to get a loan thr points i'd like to make and of course address any of the court's questions as well first of all i think we have to be clear here since in the discussion of sent in to support it i think this very situation and notably simmons pointed out and addressed thompson and the very important distinction and thompson that the two individuals the fiance and the individual plaintive were actually employee e s and i i think them and not only goes to the issue of are you a person agreed but is it if we get into the zone of interest does that zone of interest actually fall within what the statute title seven is designed to protect fully acknowledge that burlington northern does get into contact outside the workplace but in my mind that's more of an example of you know i'm a i've complained about a fellow employee harassing me and my tires get slashed in the parking lot that may not be something that happens in the workplace but it happens in the context of work or from a coworker or from a coach this is this is just what if she had complained about sexual harassment and then her father tire  parking lot i don't i don't know how far that goes but what i understand simmons to be saying is let's get back to the basics of title seven let's get back to what it's designed to protect which is terms and conditions of employment which is in fact would it would normal give employers a an easy end run around the statute if they could simply take whatever retaliatory acts they wish against a person's family members go and in this particular case your honor it is much much too far as how far it goes and particularly with regard to intervene in the intervening causes which is greg told our own conduct this court has long recognized even if we are looking at this in an employment context if an employee takes an employee makes a complaint one day and shows up to work drunk the next day and the company has an alcohol and substance abuse policy that th e employee conduct the chain of causation and certainly here in regard to mary and then even with a not non employees never an employee greg's on conduct indicating that he was going to be adverse to the bank indicate eventual a devolving on land representing he didn't have assets and then changing the terms of a trust does those particular actions on his part break any sort of chain of causation and make this case a little bit unique and different in that regard even if we look at it in the context of employer employee which is very difficult to do because otherwise i think the result would be your honor that no clue no client no company would ever have the ability to terminate a relationship an attorney client relationship with their attorney because it kind of gets into that absurd result that just the justice scalia goes into it would it deprives clients of that particular right for fear of television against me just a hypothetical a little bit let's say that a husband and wife are both employed at a particular business and the wife claims that sexual harassment has occurred at the business and the next day they hire the husband does the title seven reach that husband wife work for same employee wife filed a complaint of sex harassment the next day the husband is fired well yes that could possibly be covered by title seven now greg now if the husband went out and shot a supervisor the accused supervisor or got into a fight or had some intervening action that i don't know that the causation required for a stablish in retaliation the but for and all of that would be met and as your honor noted that's not that wasn't the situation here because we didn't have someone that had ever been an employee when we were talking about yes miss livingston one of of course i'm reading that for the record but her father mr tyler was not record first of all with regard to the adversity issue in the meeting with the bank the bank board member as an initial matter there is evidence in the record that mr keller testified in a previous case that was he would be filing a e s e charge on her behalf close quote in any event the district court correctly found and there's no evidence in the record suggesting otherwise that the bank certainly understood that told our was taking an adverse position to them now whether that's as a lawyer or father we would be filing and he has the charge on her behalf certainly suggest lawyer but but i think it could even go to you know i'm her out that way i also wanted to note that with regard to this list this customer lists that appellant's counsel referred to the evidence in the record is clear that yes there was a list and the list that eventually came out did not include mr tollers name however that list was never published it was never made available to rd parties or does in the community and that list did not foreclo not or would be prohibited from doing so i also want to point out here that it's you know what was really sort of troublesome here too is that there is no comparative or here there is no there is no attorney or no there's no attorney that's been identified who was adverse for whatever reason maybe they go on represented a bar in the community at an adverse way to the bank who on lines and in fact filed fraudulent transfer actions and objected to bankruptcies those bankruptcies were clear was the way to the assets and a payment could be made  so i do want to be clear that i think regardless of how we look at the employment relationship the scope of whether this is even within the zone of interest of title seven  and what with that unless the court has any further questions i will be happy to turn it over to ms wheeler for her for the bradley a rant counsel for her time but i asking one question i have i have one question judge barnes just a matter of procedurally through the course of this particular litigation that we hear about today is not sending any more now your honor it's not thank you thank you and i appreciate the time and i will now unless the court has any further firm all of the arguments that ms willis made about the employer employee relationship also apply it to broadly except the bradleys a step further removed not only did bradley not employ misuse of the tollers they also did not employ   the employee and her husband who was fired were both employees of the same company this court distinguished thompson in two thousand and thirteen and underwood and said that a title seven plaintiff is required to show that the employer retaliate against his own employee for engaging in protected conduct broadly has cited underwood throughout the litigation and the district court has relied on that case and the tollers have never once addressed it including today  he may have run out of time but did not address bradley at all in his oral argument today instead the tollers claim that bradley is liable as an agent of marion bank as a joint employer or as a single employer because it employs more than fifteen of its own employees each of those theories still would require bradley to have manager exercise control over some aspect of the tollers or mis youngbloods employment and there is no allegation of that here  also the primary case is that they rely on interpret different broader statutes such as a solicitor or the a da which prohibit retaliation against any employee or any individual whereas title seven's retaliation provision for hits are italian from an employer's own language as his employees i will say that and simmons i think simmons would would told that the cause of action should be brought by the employee herself would of course welcome any questions at the courthouse inquiry here in under what you had mrs underwood being employed by one agency of the state mr underwood being employed by another agency of the state and mr underwood  after his wife i believe complained of discrimination he was fired because of his association with her he never alleged that he was terminated  retaliation for his wife's conduct that his terminations was not intended i mean to retaliate against his wife he was alleging that it was retaliation against him that's not the situation is not this situation and so underwood as interesting as it is isn't controlling and it's fact on that point is that simmons where they say we searched and no circuit has decided the question they were addressing they didn't cite underwood so under would is out there it is what it is but the facts are very distinguishable from the facts here  second essentially the argument that bradley aaron is making is that law firms should be exempt from the statute if when they act as an agent of an employer and direct the conduct which there is evidence in this record that it wasn't the bank making the decisions that was their lawyers that they should not be jointly how liable for that conduct the statute i think very clearly describes the person as a law firm legal organization so law firms were included in the definitional section of a person and employer is defined as a person who employs individuals or an agent of that employer clearly a law firm is an the under what is in the law from question what i would like to go back to then is on the thompson question this will a step that simmons says we need to go back to the basics of title seven which is terms and conditions of employment that is exactly what was rejected in burlington northern versus why the retaliation provision is not intended to protect the terms and conditions it's protect it's designed to protect the oppositional section and the make certain district court decision and remand thank you thank you very much