of the protected speech by mr jones before imposing adverse actions against her for several reasons the answer to that is clear she did not perhaps the most important way for us to see that she was aware of the protected speech is a television interview that was it aired on january eleventh two thousand and eight in which there is no doubt that january eighteenth when she posed didn't notice the suspension but thirty days this was a week after the television interview with a heard about the breeding case from the supreme court that may have had this believe that she should discipline her before really doesn't have much believe you because of the weakness of the reason that she wanted to discipline her will if i'm trying to make sure i understand your argument let's suppose i conclude that there is a dispute a fact about whether intolerant to believe that she really was insubordinate or whether she really was isn't it the district's argument doesn't matter because ultimately you have to that the action was taken because of protected speech and if you can't prove  doesn't matter if she was disciplined without basis because you're not suing for discipline and we're not reviewing that discipline you know at least a merits of that discipline give reason to believe or infer that that good actions were because it protected activity in here we have a week we have a week between the television interview and the first and the judge discount that completely because it was not protected speech where the speech in the october meeting with is not a part of many complaints the lower court change in the nine one one two as to and she was also told by mr quinn to hannah i mean by ms jones said she was going to tell city council tell the mayor and tell the public and that's that what he did do there wasn't any follow up on that that statement or she forwarded the e mails or anything like that subsequent to that general statement about what she was going to do well it was a hearing apparently and for whatever testify don't give her leave how is it how do you prove how do you prevail on your your first amendment claim based on that we're council it would be interference with their first amendment rights based on what she knew already that miss jones had spoken to her about those issues and told her that what she was abridgment so those three those three items the interview the denial of leave and the the october meeting all give reason to him to support the idea that mis new and that this story of the adversity against her leaving determination to get that time this point i would like to save my time from thank you mayor to terminate miss jones she was ordered by her boss who runs the whole city to terminate ms jones so i will definitely to discuss some of the questions about an inference of causation record reprimand and that also creates a same action defense that said even the inference of causation is not exist and here under breeden there can be no temporal proximity the whole inference created by temporal proximity is simply a racist if an adverse action was contemplated just contemplated before the protected speech was either made or before the employer learned about the protected speech and here twenty minutes after mayor activity positive evidence beyond a mere proximity is required to defeat the presumption that the proffered explanations are genuine and here there is no such positive evidence i will also note that the argument testified i didn't know and that testimony stands unrefuted finally with regard to the allegation that ms kean time is the one who stopped ms jones from attending the hearing first of all it's share hearsay serve in the nine one one call center that day but beyond that she can't suggest it was because she engaged in protected speech as she argued below because her protected speech did not occur until after that hearing took place she watched the hearing on t v and then she wrote the e mails responding to what was said in the hearing finally she never argued in the district court that the prohibition itself that being precluded from attending that hearing violated the first amendment to did not release her and it is wrong that she did not engage in a protected speech she did she wrote to the city council she told her her concerns the question is whether ms when tenet knew with her protected speech she did according to ms jones declaration on january seventh day after the mayor left she contacted the newspaper the being a reason but it's clear that that which she was a bit like the lower court does acknowledge the third interview took place with the lower courts is that the yeah action personnel action at issue you know she took action the day before that and i would already be placing an employee on paid administrative leave is not an adverse action that if if i had a client who wanted me to take it to court for their reason it would do th