checked in the family birth center ok one medical center for women and children that means that she had direct patient care responsibilities for pregnant mothers and you born as well as close interaction with other employees and hospital medical center learned for the first time of threats that missile insulin had made to kill the m p s also learned from employees who were interviewed in the course of the investigation that ms until i had recently talked about having guns in her house and having access to guns he wanted medical center for women and children also heard from the employees who expressed personal fear of working with ms until on a very recent tense agitated and short tempered behavior by ms until on the hospital concluded that it appeared that they had a serious breach of their rules both from the insubordination aspect from the november twenty seventh hundred incident as well as from the additional information of threats made on property against other employees in the hospital of course and in accordance with its due process obligations under the collective bargaining agreement confronted this in s on who was accompanied by two union representatives with their concerns and what they believe they had found in the course of their investigation and very importantly there was no denial by either his own tone or her union representatives of the conduct under the circumstances and under the information they could feel any had at the time because of course this it's a long term employment relationship and if your mind was not acting in a vacuum and it did have other information that the decision makers in this case were aware of and that frankly i think appeal on it would have been remiss not to take into account in one way or another having found that terminations was warranted based on what i feel on the considered to be a very serious breach of its house rules any nevertheless felt that it inordinate threat or risk to bring to having her come back to work at that time he specifically recommended that it's in the future computer lani was inclined to terminate his own salon for future violations of work rules the should at that time consider protective actions including a temporary restraining order because in his view the constraints on her behavior that were leading her not to act out on her violent fantasies maybe left and at that time given that background i think of pilani understandably felt it had no alternative but to at least consider that and to really think about the potential dire consequences of an outright terminations and in that context i think that you want his decision to offer her a conditional six month leave of absence in january of one nine hundred ninety nine as an alternative to outright terminations which it felt was warranted based on the recent conduct pilani felt th without having fulfilled any of the conditions appear linings response was wait a minute the alternatives you had in january the decision we made in january was to offer you the conditional leave of absence in lieu of outright terminations if you're not going to take or follow conditional offer in lieu of term the nation and the july ninety nine you section ration of the terminations she's challenge that twice in front of the whole life civil rights commission both times this is the civil rights commission concluded there was no cause to believe that discrimination based on national origin disability or retaliation had occurred she challenged the decisions twice in front of the national labor relations board which both times concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate her can her belief that her that those decisions were based on her protected activity union activities she challenged at once an arbitration which found a computer line had just cause for both of its decisions under the union contract and she challenged it in two cases in a district court below which have subsequently been consolidated into one case and which is the reason we're here today because the district court of course found that the summary judgment on all her claims should be granted now is that factual backdrop i'd like to address some of the issues that mr wood you are brought up or whatever issues you would like to direct me to mr hughes you are initially talked about the national origin discrimination claim and talked about the evidence that he believes create a job an issue of fact on s are also treated better than she is she has also admitted that filipino o b techs are treated better than she is several of the names that she talks about and references as having been better treated than she does marl the i do want to mention because it was discussed in mr furze you are as argument that the class action grievance the ninety ninety eight class action grievance that ms and salon was a part of i do not believe that there is any information in the record as to the outcome for the status of that grievance on the retaliation claim i think mr wood you are conceded that although they are basing the retaliation claim in part on this nine hundred ninety eight class that i'm sorry nine hundred ninety seven class action grievance that she was the only o b check who was a part of that grievance who in fact suffered any sort of adverse action and again one would expect that if that were really the problem having filed this grievance were the problem that she would not have been the only one affected moreover today since this really is about the prior class action grievance i think we have a garmin preemption problem as well causation issue i think fully briefed argument that five fourteen five to fourteen months that we're talking about in this case it is too long in a case like this one where all you have is temporal proximity that's the only argument for why there is retaliation why there's a pr of retaliation made out and mr wood you are alluding to clark county school district versus reading the supreme court case which frankly post dates all of the cases that he mentioned in his brief and i believe that most of those cases in the brief are shorter hearing the claims examiner did not operate in a judicial capacity the standard for finding misconduct under the unemployment statute and regulations is different than the standard in court reason for for a decision it requires a finding of willful and wanton disregard of an employer's interests and finally i in terms of a policy matter i certainly do not think it would  be a sound policy to encourage employers to fight every grant of unemployment benefits it seems to me that what we want is we want employers who say well we do believe that it's appropriate to terminate you and no matter how appropriate that is we still are not going to you know why you're down by fighting your unemployment here with your ability to get unemployment benefits and frankly a lot of times the amount of unemployment benefits makes it not really an economic decision for a company to case i believe that we have addressed the question regarding outrageousness in our briefs and unless the court has any questions i don't have anything further to add ok thank you very much health care management versus