mr little we do have a rule just so you know that we don't without a prior order allow tourney's to bring in an i pad or some other electronic device but i exhibited some lenity in your case  your requests this morning and i very much appreciate that you're ok i'm kevin little and i'm the attorney for the appellant in this case jakob and rodriguez costs your honor i'd like to dedicate the majority of my time to the retaliation claim because i think that unfortunately the district court greatly oversimplified the pattern of complaints and retaliation and on that basis found that there was no causal connection between th been assigned in the fall of two thousand and eleven but repeatedly thereafter complained including a meeting that was held in october of two thousand and thirteen with herself and management of the capital case section where again the record shows on page one hundred and twenty nine and management perceived this complaint as one alleging discrimination thereafter misread regus cos made the same complaint essentially to the director of human resources mr machina that's indicated in summarized in a document that appears on page three hundred and sixty four dollars of the appendix where again part and parcel of that complaint was that men were not being required there was a least one male who was not being required to travel in the capital case section mis as she indicated and this is a dispute that was not acknowledged by the court she did not accept lock stock and barrel the entirety of this assignment when she st took what she accepted was to indict the case and handle the case and she was led to believe that at some point the long term assignment of this case including for purposes of trial would be reconsidered however after mr rodriguez cost complained there was no reconsideration and i think that's an important fact because the record shows that similar complaints by mail attorneys similar lifestyle concerns by mail attorneys had been addressed and had been accommodated but for some reason after she complained beginning in two thousand and twelve hers were not this all comes to a head in the fall of two thousand and thirteen where miss rodriguez kos once again makes these complaints and that is followed unfortunately by a december rd teen announcement that her flex aplace agreement is only being continued for two more months and perhaps an honors the greatest and clear statement of retaliatory intent in this record is testimony that mr carwell made at his deposition wherein he said that the purpose of giving only a two month extension of this flex a place agreement was to have misread regas did not agree to handle all aspects of the stone case they were contemplating ending her flights a place agreement all together if you look at what was going on up until december of two thousand and thirteen mr rodriguez cost had not refused to handle any aspect of this case she had never missed a hearing she had never missed an assignment although there were obviously several that late and the record is silent as to the cause of that whether was workload related whether she was indeed the assigned attorney responsible for all of those late filings that was never investigated but notwithstanding that  could you explain that a little bit and it sounds like in the stone case mysterious cause was reprimanded repeatedly by two judges for not just for late filings but also deficient ones an adverse employment action yes your honor with respect to the findings and they are listed in the record i think there were nine orders that made reference to late filings all of those orders did not penalize late filings themselves and there were actually fewer than nine only one of those filings referred to of those orders referred to a filing that and mentions misread regas cost directly and that was in a hearing transcript that i believe was from october of two thousand and thirteen the rest of the orders site at the government and mr rodriguez cost was not the only attorney from the government who was handling this case there was another attorney from the u s attorney's office handling the case there were actually two attorneys from the local u s attorney's office handling the case in addition to her there was a mr rooney and then a mr and a lower level trial attorney who rotated depending on the status of personnel in that division it's important however judge parker also to consider and again this is somewhat related to discrimination but i think this is a case where the fact pattern shows that all of this death tales into retaliation as well we had a male attorney mr peterson and this is an amanda hamm's declaration on page one thousand three hundred and twenty four of the record where mr peterson violated dependent policy failed to disclose exculpatory evidence received no sanction whatsoever as a matter of fact he was recognized that same year for his fine work and given very desirable assignments as judge look here you stated very recently in the do plan case i have no memory of that case the end inference of causation for purposes a retaliation case is drawn when one looks at the facts as a home proof of a causal connection can be established indirectly by showing protected activity is followed by discriminatory treatment and that's exactly what we have here if you look at how this case was handled and the disparate manner in which mr rodriguez is requests for accommodation more handled after the summer of two thousand and twelve when she began to make these complaints that males are being treated more favorably the record shows quite clear that her management stubbornly refused only in her instance and only a jury could include because she complained that she would not be accommodated where nearly simultaneously male colleagues were being accommodated the there was also a refusal to accommodate her request that there be a delineation between who would take the lead in the penalty phase versus the guilt phase which had also been provided and i think there was a case in new mexico involving mr warble where that situation had been agreed upon the record just simply shows   to follow the order to to make these complaints after the summer of two thousand and twelve and also this deposition testimony that's correct the deposition testimony and her administrative statement testimony and if you take that entire pattern of antagonism by management followed her summer two thousand and twelve complaint and continued throughout the remainder of complaints most striking good morning may please the court my name's christy daria and i'm a stand united states attorney i represent bar in this appeal for every action must miss rodriguez cost complains about the district co properly held that herm hoyer provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for these actions she does not deny these reasons dispute their accuracy or offer admissible evidence that the reasons were it's district court said that the failure of the attorneys representing the united states orders and deadlines undermined the credibility of the court and the council is forewarned that the court is seriously considering an or the defense is able to do that then france and retaliation dissipates and then the plaintiff has to show that the desire to retaliate was the but for reason and she has to show that not only is the reason offered false but that discrimination is the reason for it action she doesn't do so here she doesn't deny the stone orders she doesn't deny the judicial criticisms she doesn't deny that she was not going to try the case as scheduled because of her personal life  not part of the capital case section which is a biggest cost was a part of i am happy to answer any further questions the court may have otherwise i respectfully rest on my papers thank you r the honors i must take issue with my adversaries characterization that it's undisputed that miss rodriguez kos refused to handle the assignment there's actually nothing in the record that shows she refused to handle the assignment what the record shows is that she complained that the assignment was not only unfair given her personal circumstances but also reflected more favorable treatment to male c c s attorneys than  that her being a female c c as attorney with respect to it's also very i think important for the court to understand that there was nothing new that had occurred in the stone case in terms of any failures either retaliation claim are discrimination claim in a discrimination claim as i think the district court cited they didn't they ultimately found under mr rodriguez casas special circumstances where the  place agreement terminations must hand amount to firing her that ultimately it was an adverse employment circumstance but i think very clearly for purposes of retaliation under the new sar standard where all an employee has to prove is that the action taken against her has a tendency to make her more reluctant or reason employee more reluctant to make complaints in the future i think that the evidence is very clear that for purposes of retaliation this was an adverse action