international union of operating engineers and no walk if she was assigned to a job site working at change and or in sun inc in a walk in at a project that was called the mccarran during her knowledge overcome testimony specifically did not gain that knowledge what is implausible about his testimony that he believed it was simply a union grievance yes there are there i would point to the testimony in our reply brief from mr as some koski where he indicates that he was aware and in two thousand and any female is described by mr snyder and others as indoors discrimination compliance officer and or on appeal below ocus is like a laser whether or not he was aware that an actual complaint was filed with an administrative agency as opposed to whether he was generally aware that the subject matter of the complaint was based on sex discrimination record your honor comes from mr snyder who indicates that sonny femal investigates discrimination complaints and those complaints would generally come to him as the general superintendent on projects we know that we're complaining about in this case all occurred after change and or responded to the complaints of discrimination when i see i actually had a question very much like the ones judge rover has asked looking at the tw twelve grievance it seems obvious to me that people can complain about all sorts of things they can complain about job assignments they can complain about you know borish coworkers they can complain about sex discrimination they can complain about hours of work i was on this shift or that shift i don't know why we jumped from the fact that a grievance was filed all the way over to the fact that not only it was a sex discrimination grievance but that jim koski knew that because if he didn't know it then we jump ahead to two thousand and eighteen he's the only person who even conceivably could have known it because the others didn't in two thousand and eighteen and that is that it's a sex discrimination complaint doesn't mean that a reasonable jury could not so conclude it is clear from his testimony that he's aware of the complaint occurred in two thousand and twelve that relates to layoff from skip boyce which is the exact subject matter of the e e o c charge and in order to respond to that church barely one would have to speak with mr some koski the person who made a way out decision i acknowledge that i don't have a mission in this case but i don't think that that's necessary given the events that were complaining about our subsequent response to the charge of discrimination and also i to point out that spoken with relating to discrimination complaints and specifically being aware that ms even had him back and played about being laid off from the script ways and describing conversations with misty about the layoffs in  skep boys they go to the union the union identifies based on seniority and other factors who is entitle to that job and there was nothing that prohibited her from that child with until that two thousand and seventeen conversation with m maskey denial of the nature of the charge i mean what company would answer a discrimination complaint without asking the person who made the decision when there is decision was are spots there was a different lawyer who represented the company of the time and that warner wrote a response so it could very well have been that the lawyer also to be investigated herself with regard to the reasons for why the the company's decisions was it was a good look well but she does she does know though that mr sheen koski at the same time she being so critical of are apparently is submitting forms for the union that allow her to be promoted from apprentice to journeyman which is a significant move in the world of unions and so that could be seen as evidence that the criticisms weren't the real reason for their treatment of her that in fact her performance was fine and it was something else well st off you're honored to be on the job training hard so your friends to say they are some evidence that the company marked her advised unions to promote everybody i don't know why the logical inference can't be that he was satisfied enough with their work that he was willing to certify for the union that promotion was appropriate average and the undisputed testimony why it did that is that because she was standing right in front of which she completed it and that he did not want to break her spirit and furthermore that she was in milwaukee county president and the company had a certain quota  county residents who were in the jobsite so he pressed in his own words you try to make it work from the la county residents and that may not have been the best practice your honor but here is even needs evidence not only that it was not a good hiring her and the true reason was this other twenty two all you seem beyond the on the job training cards missing relies on this letter that was sent in april twenty in c and yet again the only testimony in the record about why it was sent six years after the in the current climate was that that's when the union asked for it and so there's certainly no evidence in the record to show that that delay in time was influenced by mr