will be withdrawing the federal claims and ask this court to slowly look at the state law retaliation claim as the focus of our appeal here today and the walker was hired by the defendant or saw a cutting tool as a c n c machine asst in two thousand and eight he worked proximately six years and during that entire tenure he never was formally disciplined or formally written off at any time for any discipline infraction and the walker did his job on a day to day basis and october fourteenth verse twenty first night two thousand and fourteen he was assaulted by a coworker todd rafferty while he was at his machine listening to music he was dancing and mr rafferty decided to assault him by that he threatened to beat him up by that i mean it was actually a threat of physical violence of imminent physical harm to mr walker's person that is a crime in the state of illinois the matter was actually observed by management andy kruk mr krause then separated the two that were having this interaction on the workplace floor the parties are separated conversations were gathered what you crime thereby supporting the plaintiffs claims of physical violence against him or the threat of physical violence against him so at this juncture the party is separated that things go back to normal so to speak and then there's a subsequent day my client shows up and he's complaining that management has not taken the threat seriously and he complains about the crime that has occurred to him in the workplace and management failure to address his concerns management takes that is that this guy's a troublemaker and ultimately they come to the conclusion after a couple meetings that anthony walker is the problem and then they move in then before i get there for a move to terminate him he's actually off work for several weeks from that time period to approximately i believe it was november seventeenth when he was formally terminated in between or or before that date anthony walker actually filed the police report but one of the things i want to make sure the court understood is that no we're in the public policy retaliation law is there requirement that the reporting of a crime must be coupled with an immediate police report to the police department all right that happened over history walk did in fact make that police report and then subsequently on november seventeenth he's terminated thank you now this was just an exchange of words of the public policy retaliation claim in in the section b of our complaint or our brief that we brought these public policy claims in it is our position that once the district court found the cases which court their proposition for final adjudication on the state law claim now the way the port handled this state law claim is in our position based on my reading of the court's order  both orders is that the court treated it more like a federal clean and utilize the federal summary judgment standard versus the state law standard which was appropriate here and there is a distinction in federal courts it's standard n its july eleventh order indicating that there is a variance between the two and would you agree that since you were in the united states district court rule fifty six of the federal rules of civil procedure was what  when it is my belief that when you are applying the summary judgment step into a state law play case i understand that your belief and i find it difficult to reconcile that with your ear but maybe you here in what we believe is that the court and properly dealt with that case can't and that in the order of summary judgment it found that it could not reach to the defendant could not have reached a decision reached because he filed a police report but that's not the condition precedent that has to happen in my client has had to report a crime which then invokes the public policy  narrow exception as provided in the state and state law cases whether you take the whole material case which is the case in which there was actual criminal act activity or involvement in criminal activity  and that individual was terminated that influence invoked and established that this narrow exception exists and in this case my client met all of those requirements in gage and protected activity reported a crime was there or a causal nexus in the activity we believe that this summary judgment standard if applied appropriately demonstrates it was because nothing was pending against my client except that he reported this activity and then all of a sudden he's no longer capable of being a member of this organization and he's out the door everything flowed from this report of the crime in the workplace everything right so the issues that were raised by the defendant regarding another employee or other ploys in which they had some issues there's zero evidence to support that he was ever disciplined for it there was any written documentation to support any of that we know that there was issues regarding the machines that were going effects plan had him on october twenty ninth so approximately eight days later seven days later he reported it to the police they didn't do take any action on it much how do we connect that action with the decision to terminate it was the original reporting of the crime in the workplace to the employer which is what i believe is the the starting point that is the protected activity right if i report a crime to you sam this happened to me in your workplace that triggers the public policy  retaliation exception and then everything that followed thereafter was all causally related at least from our position to that and this will reporting there was nothing pending between my client and the defendant so ultimately the this decision to get rid of him was all premised on my client's complaints to them that they were protecting him in the workplace his fear in his workplace fear in his fear in the workplace because of the physical threats that were issued against him by mr rafferty and the defend his failure to address it they pretty much slough them off and said well deal with it you know not exactly those words but the ultimate effect was to  y deal with it and that's what happened here so when you apply the standard is set forth from the illinois supreme court in the michael case and the district court was wrong in the way it dealt with this case while it's true when i did my motion to alter or amend the judgment maybe the standard is the court outlined it of  is the whole cell disregard misapplication or failure to recognize the controlling president as it states in its judgment order the bottom line is that in that order it recognizes the michael case but it just and one of the reasons why the court should avoid it creating precedent for this type of state law claim so with that in mind judge we're asking for two months to reverse that decision to kick this matter back to the state simplifies what we have to do today i'd like to suggest that they consider doing something identical with regard to the worker's comp retaliation issue which in essence is no different it was a minority he suffered a discharge but there's no c connection he had pending worker's comp games he was discharged and there's no evidence of causal connection that's the way the just a court found it and there's really not been any argument pursuing count three the worker's comp retaliation i think first off the insight in michael the district are really cited to support the proposition that in illinois illinois law says were employed it will yes there are exceptions and it goes on to talk about how those are  only use of michael in this case with regard to whether the district court should have sent it back to its it unique situation where we are really being asked to fund do what mr walker sought to do when he invoked federal jurisdiction he was there is his choice he didn't have to be there destroys especially given the flimsy nature of both the title seven and the worker's  if this was his issue he could have focused in the forum where he wanted to focus where he today wants to focus but he didn't he's here and being in federal court we don't play b don't mean this disrespectfully mr walker's rules of procedure or bottle counts for most of procedure but by the federal rules of procedure there was plenty of discovery there was no problem raised an untimely motion for summary judgment and decided it's best to explain why they discharged mr walker it's unfortunate that he was discharged nobody wants to be discharge but the other side of the coin is they had a series of unfortunate problems with mr walker the trigger to the discharge the last trigger the straw that broke the camel's back one might say was on october twenty three when mr walker tells not just his immediate supervisor  crock but mr kruk and then repeats it to the business unit manager d m thompson i don't trust you any longer i've lost respect for you i think he also said you've got a lot to lose all that's in the record the record is pretty clear in this case we have contemporaneous documents these were e mails that were generated step by step as the decision making was broken up by andy crack the immediate supervisor and nothing ever happened between the two of them again they were together the next day with no problem october twenty two the company sent mr referee home that night as as we've argued in our case he had a two year period of time where mr walker was alleging that a coworker was sabotaging the machine that he had to work on and at the company should discipline that coworker for doing that that he should give them days off that he should be punished in a disciplinary sense the company never agreed with it finally after a long i think eighteen months of this thompson sat down with both of those two employees sterling washington and anthony walker separately told them they got to put their dispute to rest no more harsh allegations it was mr walker's deposition testimony that he understood after that meeting that he was being told to keep his mouth shut about sterling washington and let sterling do whatever he wanted that say his language not mine and not trying to be sarcastic about the me and his view was it had been put to rest i think he didn't like that he talked to scott tilt and let me on the reports of the president of the company who oversees it all of the operations  two that are in the record and give you the record references if you want to confine him to take a minute or two but where this expectation is clearly set out it's also set out in mr tilton's affidavit as is the no longer working for the company he doesn't have an axe to grind there's no factual dispute about what i represented to be the background to a tobar of two thousand and fourteen this altercation with or this argument with m against that background they have the problem and it's unfortunate but mr townson reached the conclusion he could not keep mr walker in that what they call pot that's their plant unless he terminated these other employees he decided under those circumstances to discharge him he met on october twenty seventh well he e mailed though those facts to everybody about mr tilton and the human resources organization he was made to discharge this guy before the decision was made to invoke cleese if there was a crime at any point in here it sure seems to me that that crime is not tied to this discharge as illustrated by the e mail exchanges that went back and forth the notion that there was a threat which we think we started off with the argument that's in the paragraph twenty eight of i believe mr walker's affidavit but the notion that there wasn't a threat we think is i just misspoke i guess if you look at doc in the fifty two dash two page number nine forty seven you'll see paragraph twenty eight of andy crux affidavit where he says after the referee argument occurred he brought him to their office they separated him they talked to the water first send him back to work and then he explains that type rafferty came back to talk to him and what he actually said was i wish i could go out there right now and punch the guy in the nose or the face or something like that that was a threat that was made to mr crock after the argument that they have now i stress that because i think this was just words between these two yes there is a belated insertion for purpose summary judgment will assume that they were beyond that that he was gaunt but it was essentially a workplace argument and nothing else now the police report came about in the afternoon of october twenty ninth this is not like comments here where the employer told the employee not to go the police went to the police and got fired the reason that i'm stressing that is we cooperate or is no public policy problem here in the us all cooperated with the police they came out of the plant that afternoon they investigated and there's been no problem ever since there was no prosecution of a of a crime where here really state law still requires some evidence of some motive is related to the protected activity i don't think any was produced i don't think the district court found that any of that type of causal connection was shown that there was any evidence of that sort so we think that that concern alleging the whistleblower caused to this just charge is is just misplaced key here was mr walker failed to do what even scott tilton expected of him and that is give up these harsh delegations have respectable communication with people through to a point where it was no longer going to be condoned that well again it's supports our proposition the argument he just made and the bringing up of sterling washington has nothing to do with what happened with the coal worker  separate incidents and words are sufficient to commit a crime committed assault is only have to bring about imminent fear of bodily harm and those are still soley words right i'm going to be the live in you know what adi you and if you perceive it to be that that's a crime soley works though the employer just believes ok just to coworkers no big deal see that supports our proposition the employer clearly doesn't believe words mean anything in this context but they do it in both the public policy narrow exception and the reason anything happened to my client was because of that incident not sterling washington not title not anybody else he reports this incident on the twenty first and then shortly thereafter they have meetings and the whole meetings are geared well let's talk about like it was getting rid of anthony all right but it's all all of it flows from the conduct of reporting the criminal activity to the management of that company all of it all right but for that incident he would not have been terminated all right there's nothing in the record to show that he would have been terminated but for this incident when he calls us up and then he calls on management to protect him they send him home with pay and never comes back all right the way to deal it is like well he's the problem all right but because he can he reported the crime he received the protection under illinois state low public policy retaliation that is why we're asking this court to reverse the decision that the state law claims and the send this back to the state thank you so much for thank you places taken under