did not sure i understand why the court got the position that i think frankly the ninth circuit position is a better position however that's what we're faced with  that with the nurse practitioner who was your advisor who was outside the fire department discussed it with dr hoffman who is their medical advisor the doctor who supervised paramedics house or the department but those are public not they should rank on a off duty person although he may have been looking for her opinion she wasn't involved in the writing of the letter but she was disciplined for writing a letter that was done by th subpoena he was told to make this report all right but i think there was also an issue there about whether or not he actually had had any disciplinary action taken and because he was transferred been to agree with them but i think the supreme court left the door open for you to do evaluate on a case by case basis whether or not there is something that is  switched theories after the cause of discovery and summary judgment and that's exactly what happened in this case inflames in some cases may receive first amendment the credit for traction for expressions made it work the court left open that window and discussed certain exceptions that were not aggressed in this case particularly a case of academic field but the ruling in that case which clearly applies in this case without exception was with respect to statements made by workers with respect to their official horribles with regard to complaints well i just you can take notice of the fact that there is a specific provision in procedure available under the state of washington's licensing laws regarding the qualifications  versus western life inside the school district where the response was in the course of employment was and was in response to alcide survey regarding employment discrimination in that particular workplace so there is a potential exception it's not in this case but there is evidence of structure that i believe that the supreme court recognized and i want to just tell the notion that simply because there was internal discussion among the department or the department supervisory stifle the other opportunities to review these issues under whistleblowing and other protections that are available for public employees i want to turn just very briefly to the retaliation claim again we talked  about procedural aspects of this but as the crown court in this court in review of the record will find that there is nothing other than arguably they don't even get past the price of fish a case that even if you assume that they get past uncontroverted evidence regarding the investigation the wrong doing the basis for the disappoint there is no response to that that was fast and that is i was fired within a month after i filed a complaint with the human rights to part respect to the final investigation that led to two different actions a seven day suspension as well as determination and the recitation of the employment history leading up to that now this court's not going to you know go back and look at the employment history of every employee case that comes before it but in this case you do have in the record that history of progressive discipline of a continuum of problems that this employee that led the department to the determination during her probationary period so there is a cause of connection there that she was on probation the record clearly demonstrates that the board of fire commissioners have reduced her probation from twelve months to six months in response to  she was the top of the list and they had nothing they could use against her but within short order they became very unhappy with her because she wasn't going along with what the chief wanted to do when it didn't fit the protocol she's supposed to follow  have a full time permanent position as a paramedic firefight she was not terminated as a result of probation violation probation violations only took away or kept injury and because she had not finished the and so i would ask you to take a look at this case i think he deserves a day in court