to start with the chronology of facts are facts matter in this in this in this case miss hines was work with the department corrections for over seven years back in twenty thirteen i gave a state exam and qualify to be a correctional treatment officer the next step up as a question officer now one she took a position sometime in mid summer of twenty thirteen she was  days or weeks the relationship is not very good working relationship is not good he starts to demean her it came to a point where he waves of book at her or his hand wants to make complaints she wants to talk to her supervisors and the two gentlemen out there lieutenant martin and mr prison now they hear the complaints they're not a direct supervisor because mr heraclea was a train trainer but out of the blue now they're supposed to do some evaluations she starts getting bad evaluations now she has to go through this probationary period and she has to pass a probationary period presuming that she does well and she passes the evaluation then she will be a permanent c t o the short form a correctional treatment officer now this is there's a union also with the department of corrections she gets a union representative and said i want to follow a grievance the union says ok let's try to follow grievance this was after mr arkell was transferred that is correct your honor the nature of her grievance after he's transferred she did not agree with the evaluations at all every almost every month a month and a half she was getting bad evaluations somewhere other than mr her rocker correct these are the supervisors who get the information from mr hereafter any evidence that these negative evaluations were based on gender or race yard don't you evidence we have is she is the only african american c t o training at that time frame he also apparently forgot her password and spent some time trying to get her computer to work that is that's not a race or gender based complaint correct that is correct but that is not true and that's why she any other evidence that race or gender playing a factor in any employment  i do not have direct evidence you are there and the evidence even of circumstantial evidence you are the other she's the only one who was through this this process she's the only one who was being anything like that but you see in these kinds of cases no you know i do not have a smoking and smoking gun but the closest i can get for this incident during this process is some time in october while she's working at the departed correction at the institute of the prison because she didn't like her possibly of course that it happened because someone didn't like her now can i say is there any evidence of that i can say or anybody can say well it was for race or because she's a female or because she's complaining no i can't say that but looking at the arm and says it did an investigation including looking at video and and concluded that this did not happen and wasn't done by any any employee i mean the only evidence is if i go walk outside right now and as it's wet i can see it right let's presume she was working there nothing happened the morning hugh parked a car but somebody did that to her car we can presume common sense would presume that somebody did that at her workplace we are not saying i don't have evidence to show that a department employee who did not like him for gender or race did that to her i can assure that but can a jury decide that hey this was done to her car and somebody didn't like her or maybe just didn't like it because the way she is maybe didn't like her because she's incompetent let's presume those facts and parkman purposes but the same time if she's going through this long term phrase of having a difficult time at the workplace after seven years of working there and complaining about her supervisor about her trainer a jury could decide that is a material fact i think could be disputed well jury could decide yes she was a target for an improper purpose and let's assume a jury could decide that an employee did this to her car are no i don't put is there from which a jury could find that she was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her point based on race or gender because her good faith belief number one number two she incident or even says i don't think they can do anything about it because they're not controlling managers but she goes and tells them about all these issues that has been happening during her probationary period as a c t o and she says all these grievances that happened in the small incidents but they all add up i'm not saying that just the vandalism of the car i'm talking about how rocker treated her how she was during when she has to cross or do inspections she has steel or iron doors that have to be opened to go the next location she could not get that door get those doors open it's in an affidavit the reason she couldn't do it because she had to wait for some other employee to come and let  morning or honors me please the court carolyn an assistant attorney general representing the defendant the state of connecticut department of correction in this matter this court should affirm the district court's granting of summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims brought under title seven and the connecticut fair employment practices act for the court because the plaintiff makes reference in her brief to harassment and a hostile work environment that she withdrew any other claims before the district court so the only claims that issue in this case are discrimination and retaliation claims the district court properly granted summary judgment on both those claims finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant's legitimate reasons here be the well established record as her overall on satisfactory performance in her promotional working test period and her on authorized leave following her failure to submit proper medical documentation to substantiate a continued absence there was no evidence presented that these reasons were a pretext for any on lawful discrimination or retaliation indeed the record indicates otherwise that do you see other than acting with a discriminatory over tell you tory purpose went above and beyond in this case giving the plaintiff ample opportunity to succeed in her promotional working test period offering to extend the period implementing an action plan and notified her on several different occasions of the need to submit a proper medical certificate so because the district court properly found that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of pretext as to these reasons the district court's decision should be affirm append next i believe that motion has been reserved until after the panel's decision but we will be seeking reimbursement at least to the extent of the bond imposed at the district court level file a grievance it is not allowed and that's why the union could not help in that regard to go forward you know the medical authorization it does look like these two  medical certificates are identical except for the second one was why you know correct or not that is what they've said now of course my client was heinz never ever would even dream of doing a widing it out it's possible we believe i a mob side by side they're identical except from what looks like why now correct and i we believe that it's possible that the doctor's office because a doctor's office the one also who had faxed over this information