the police court my name is martin phil potts and i have the pleasure of representing mary had and keith henderson who are here this morning as the  the rehabilitation act we have this disability based discrimination in federal employment and i regard it as a case such as this the plight of need only demonstrate that the employer regarded him or her as impaired whether or not that impairment is believed to limit a major life activity although the trial court sorry the employee need only demonstrate that the employer regarded the person is impaired is also a requirement of showing that that the adverse actions were motivated by discrimination on account of that perception not enough to the person to be regarded as as as as having this attribute it does need to be that causal connection absolutely terms of the agreement adverse on that basis and that has to be shown absolutely absolutely and we believe  your honor that the evidence in the record was sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that it was indeed related to the  services perception of the appellant as being or regard it as impaired me ask you about the joint complaint yes both of your clients obviously signed it states everyone in the apartment and well beyond have suffered from her for it to be irrational and hostile behavior as well so how can it be that the actions that are being complained of are upon disability my clients it was far more extreme now my clients were not lawyers and so in terms of their drafting the joint complaint to the extent that they indicated that everyone to some extent felt their wrath they testified in their deposition that there was certainly preferential treatment in the learning and development  and harassment doesn't mention no it does not i can see that it does not specifically say discrimination based upon age or disability well you could just have a was too excessive those projects were taken away and given to my clients my clients were required to stay beyond their shifts without compensation my clients were directed be to be extremely weak evidence because it's quite different from calling calling all the people who are under the same supervisor and having each of them testify i was never asked this i was never ordered to stay late i mean most people don't have that good an opportunity to know whether every other person that they work with has ever asked to stay stay late and they say that they say we never observed any of the other people being asked to stay late but that that doesn't mean we were keeping tabs on and keeping  careful track of where and making sure that we had the information absolutely if that was the only if that was the only shred of evidence that we were relying upon you would be absolutely right but it's not it's a credible information on saying length was not the only issue i know i'm asking about that issue you're sure making a point of that issue and i'm questioning whether that was one among others for instance the other individuals were never directed that it couldn't so it's not just a matter of who stayed late and was not compensated it totality of circumstances in terms of the overall workload and my time is up i'm going to reserve two minutes  good morning it please the court my name is carolyn carney i'm an assistant u s attorney in the civil division in hartford connecticut the postal service is entitled to summary judgment on all three of the plaintiffs claims because well settled principles of black letter employment law govern and apply in this case st with respect to retaliate it's well settled that  retaliation needs to be for activity that comes within the ambit of the anti discrimination statutes it's in the statute itself actually and in this case when the plaintiffs have submitted the joint complaint also this leafs slip and one other memorandum that are only generic complaints of a harsh work environment that is not enough to bring this case into the ambit of the anti retaliation provisions of the eel law nd with respect to age discrimination it's well settled that when trying to show age discrimination  fail and that is two of the six counts you're saying is just as if they had never made a complaint to the sea making a complaint to doesn't complain of a protected ground goes to the seat and you say i'm being treated horribly by my boss and being subjected to and a hostile work environment my boss is horrible to me because all kinds of terrible things but you never mention any protected and the ground protected by title seven by constitute prior protected activity under the isa laws now i would draw a distinction in this case you know the complaint of conduct came before the e o complaint the formal e e o complain that underlies this case the plaintiff is correct that you don't have to file a formal charge you know the specific piece of paper you know a notice of discrimination or complaint of discrimination in order to have engaged in prior protected activity the question in this case is whether or not the leaves with the joint complaint and mrs hatch's response to her letter of warning which are not your complaints whether or not that constitutes prior protected activity and for the reasons that your honor just articulated that those complaints are generic to any anything that comes within the ambit of the anti discrimination statutes then they are not prior protected activity and therefore plaintiff's retaliation claims cannot proceed on that basis st argument to the retaliation point not just the retaliation yes second with respect to the age discrimination claims when there is no particularly when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory animus and the plaintiffs are relying on comparison between themselves and other persons it's well settled that  need to be similarly situated in all material respects including being subject to the same performance considerations and in this case the plain institutional knowledge lay with the plaintiffs and that and that because their coworkers were newer and used to me to be one of your weaker arguments because  except the proposition that if the if the circumstances of the greater experience of capability of the person is complaining if the circumstances make it appropriate to give that person more  work and is given to the junior then evidence that merely the person is given more work than a junior does not show discrimination it's me they're not they're not comparable but if they're saying if they're saying  we were given we unlike our juniors were given work and beyond any beyond our capability of handling that that that accepting that we were justifiably given more work than others that didn't justify giving us so much work that we couldn't possibly do it and so the thing they're complaining about is not that they were given more work than others but that they don't like the others were given differentials fate that the plaintiffs are outlining for example with respect to leaving early and being permitted to leave earlier actually not being permitted to leave on time it's probably a more accurate way of saying it i'll direct the court to join appendix seven  of the differential treatment actually all of the differential treatment allegations are really based on sermonize so that's with respect to leaving early but it's also with respect to being able to take a leave or being challenged on taking else just mr burgess and then she says well he took a lot of annual leave but then she conceded well she didn't know what kind of lead he was using and then it becomes clear the point just don't even know that whether or not he was on leave he just physically wasn't in the office to hear observation again this is a joint appendix for ninety three the answer from the plaintiff you know how did you know about this differential treatment with respect to leave and the answer was because he was gone meaning mr burgess wasn't wasn't around and mr henderson said something similar joint appendix six hundred and fifty he says well because other people would be gone from the office again that's just not you know one instance of other people it's not it's doesn't have the program and i'm speaking with each other in the workplace you know the record is the record is silent on whether or not that was something that means like he directed others to do or not we just don't know and similarly with respect to the that other people didn't receive such directions not to speak to each other i actually did seem to me to be whether that's competent evidence or even if it's competent to achieve something it's very very weak because the plaintiffs wouldn't necessarily know but are you saying that that is something in the record isn't it or is it not there is you know something in the record it's both i think i'm st of all i as i stand here i'm not sure where that is in the record the nd point they seem to join  of direction had ever been given to somebody else well and that's what i mean by the record is silent right we just we just we just don't know but even if that were true right i just don't think that that has enough progress as value to show the difference in treatment that would court thank you e anti retaliation statutes that it is a clarification as to what constitutes protected activity both formal and informal we think that there is sufficient evidence in the record to warrant  a vacating of the grant of the motion for summary judgment we ask that the case be remanded back to the trial court speaking for myself alone not representing the opinions of anybody else it seems to me as if your client's  very very sympathetic case in the sense that it appears that they were subjected to two extremely terrible working circumstances by their by their supervisor but i'm not sure that they have much of a case of demonstrating that that amounts to two proof of the federal offense of prohibited discrimination on the grounds of of receive disability or age because they're there evidence no matter how strong their evidence is a horrible treatment by their supervisor litke that's not enough to make a federal case of discrimination i understand your honor but i