wasn't sure which right tell us what the difference is so the false claims act retaliation provision section thirty seven thirty eight protect you against any pretext the relator of the person who might be a whistleblower against retaliation for bringing potential violations of the false claims act to the attention of the employer the n b a protects the employer the employee against a contractor employee specifically against really there was only one ground that she used to decide that and that was her decision that the federal leases in question weren't federal contracts and she made in her in her discussions of that point  she emphasized that these leases were leases between government agencies and that's actually wrong or it that would be correct in our view there's not a problem because the n e a is specifically a cause of action against the contractor so on but just to finish that thought the the and so the violation of law here and miss armstrong view is the false petition of information in a report that's being used to report up the chain to sell the information to the federal real property council survey did not bring a false claims case that's correct all you need to show is that there was an arguable not that you're right about correct and that's and that goes with the supreme court case a gram which basically says you don't have to prove a violation because it's it's would a would another employee in your shoes knowing what you know possibly feel that your employer might be violating false claims act that's the the objective test the way other though that there was protected activity but her reasoning really collapsed this objective reasonableness a requirement into whether she's right ok so she she seemed to analyze objectivity the objective reason in this of whether she suspects a violation with the question of whether she's right about whether there's a violation and those two things can't be conflated because it is completely destroys the requirement in graham that you don't have what the proper way was to do these nice i mean isn't that pretty good reason for him to that activity by his own testimony the questions that he was researching were related to the fraud allegations that she had discussed with him at a direction interview and he had already been looking into  circumstantial evidence is evidence just as much as direct evidence and you can infer from circumstantial evidence anything that a reasonable person would be able to infer and the question for us is really reasonable to infer that they need a little when he was questioned about that you email he said this is what i was reading this is what i was looking into right she understood that to me that they were invoking this contract provision that says they can terminate her for personal professional performance pretty much any reason she did after she refused to provide any information about any reasons for their decision and then made his decision after looking at their will now start his knowledge it's undisputed here that he had no knowledge of her accusations against the you know this is also speculation because the question wasn't asked on the follow up there but the answer to the answer is that she asked questions general questions about face allocation at what point o that i don't know if she acknowledged at all what the question was whether she had asked or informed him that she had discovered falsification of data that she was had ac preparing some of these reports that are dishes it's so actually interviewed and then she he find out something during that interview in the in the early have the authority to rehire well he made his decision prior to learning any of that and that moment that that is true when what matters is when he made his decision did he have that information because you can't make a decision based upon information you learn after the provide the information they have found that the cap was not play there did the airline have a right to fire her without question or remove her from the b l m project without question they didn't have to have any grounds they could just have her removed the tags have many options to leave her working at the allens no and in our position you know basically that wasn't working out and he understood that to me that she's not leaving these these standards that this is not working out for them and that she needs to dealt from their perspective and so then he took the step he needed after that after hearing  secs so first of all it's not doing the facts in the light most able to miss armstrong to assume that her conversation with eco on september twenty five dealt with the same thing that steve could himself actually said related to her frontlines in this deposition me she said she deposition when she was asked and she said i did not tell him that i was concerned about friday or misrepresentations or anything like that and that's my recollection of