versus graduate center of the city university there's gradual employment actions that indicate that there was prior to the retaliation or tell the protect activity but there's not going to be any type of claim that could survive and it's our position that there was in fact to protect that city that occurred well before any type of negative performance evaluation or i was not referenced in your complaint as the protected activity that which you were complaining retaliation occurred it was it's something that you've come up with after the fact you want to amend discussion paragraph twenty nine of the complaint regarding the issue regard of renewal of their visa this paragraph does not allege that there were any disruptions beginning in january two thousand and thirteen the first allegation any type of disruption occurred in february two thousand and fourteen after the oral complaint was made to miss bishop by my client's new miss lees so as referring back to your honor's question even though it was not part it was not identified specifically as to protect the activity it was part of the complaint that was referenced within the cause of action the first cause of action the title line of complaint and taking the pleadings liberally it could be recognised as a protected action identified in the complaint however when you take there's an inference that occurred in two thousand and thirteen it allegations of the complaint i think it's best to walk through the timeline of the complaint because it's not necessarily the most clear timeline set forth missed bishop became the executive director in two thousand and thirteen at that time there was an oral complaint shortly thereafter misleads then took ethanol a leave from november two thousand and thirteen through january two thousand and fourteen when she returned she was issued a profound negative performance review the first of her twenty year career with the graduate center and from there on there was problems with you hadn't gotten any any positive reviews for that right that i'm aware of you're on that's correct there's that's when the problems with the renewal began they had an agreement regarding a job description for each one b visa that was delayed by mr bishop for several months after she made a complaint to the provost of the graduate think it's our position that there was sufficient temp oral and circumstantial evidence that was alleged that would indicate that there was retaliatory intent behind the terminations are they then in action that led to the term nation further as just the slur opinions what was relied upon by the district court in reaching this position and i think i think that this that case right there is an opposite because we are talking about actions that occurred after the oral complaint that appears in the complaint in the actual complaint of the lawsuit not actions that occurred years before that a jury or someone could consider would  to progressive discipline or eventually terminations there were no issues with employment that an issues with her employment or performance or even renewing a visa up until she made her all complaint to mrs bishop she also taught classes that the graduate center in this type of area this field so i think they're not suggesting that that that's an area where only with  preceded the negative valuation and so the negative valuation which was your answer to the formal complaint is now is now is not not not relevant to the world complaint and what is your proof that yours why do you think it and then in the complaint for that to include that as the protected activity would be futile you are because the the complaint employment that the process began as early as january two thousand thirteen that after two years passed she did knock at the viva and she plants this on n p r authority on a purposeful alleged purposeful to lay furthermore asked to be written evaluation my brief cites of one case law stating that where you have a new supervisor comes on the scene that they are entitled to get their own assessment of the employee's performance and the fact that they give a negative assessment does not evidence retaliation just very very briefly your honors again with the my ponies and then also the lower court focused much of their attention on paragraphs twenty nine and thirty of the complaint which is in the appendix page nine this these paragraphs do not state that anything about problems with obtaining a visa prior to two thousand and fourteen so i think that that statement of fact is a misreading of the complaints and i think there was it was used by paragraphs thirty one which also discussed the period thirty one and also paragraphs thirty one thirty two which discuss what was going on when there was a problem with trying to renew the visa specifically that there was a job description that was agreed upon that wasn't published with de lay and then once it was published it was unworkable and that then misleads took action in order to try to get a new type of visa other than h one b which was ignored and there was no cooperation fro creating the job description that would be submitted as part of a one b visa process where you have to obtain applicants and compare them to united states citizens that might be able to sustain the position and by not creating that position without seeming that job description it interfered with her opportunity to get h one b visa but time that's that's where my earlier question came in how could it how could a supervisor make that argument if she had had that position for over twenty years its previous supervisor had done the same but now miss bishop filling it out right that's correct thank you thank you will take back a sender devi