particular case that was not the result first of all the hearing officer in the thirty eight in the thirty twenty eight proceeding while did concededly consider the concept of retaliation and discrimination did not apply a full analysis of full mcdonnell douglas analysis to the list claimants it's also submitted that why would it be appropriate to do a mcdonnell douglas analysis that's kind of a summary judgment standard issue the hearing officer heard all the evidence and then made a factual determination there was no evidence no evidence that the actions against plaintiff were tainted by animism hostility or any inappropriate consideration well but in making that determination you correct with certain aspects of the plaintiff's claim the run of the hearing officer did brenda that believe that the plaintiff's attorney in that case presented the argument in passing i don't think the argument was fully confronted by the  ferraro's claim that the formal and informal observations were raided and satisfactory were inefficient in retaliation for the complaints that he filed with the department i find the credible record does not support the claim of retaliation so at least with retaliation that seems to be that that was mr ferraro's claim that he got raided this way in retaliation for his complaints and the under the principles of collateral estoppel your honor i don't believe that that finding was material to a determination as to whether much whether or not my client should be dismissed from his employment as a teacher why not if  e charges that he did have incompetently and that therefore he should be fired and the defense is this is a pretext that's been concocted because they were really being retaliatory and the hearing officer then says i don't find any evidence of that but i do find evidence that the firing was justified why is it immaterial to make a finding on  whether the defense is true that this was a concocted plot to get rid of mr ferraro because of his disability or first of all i believe that you know this court has held that the mere fact that one is terminated in a thirty twenty sixty six of the furthermore there is no evidence to show the principle nori or a p slip or harbor any animosity or hostility against because of the numerous complaints you filed there related to his medical condition the timing doesn't indicate any wrongdoing they provided him with requested accommodations or specific discussion of all this in the fifty three page right that is what the hearing officer ruled but i don't believe that  it was no record though developed there was no record developed because the mr ferraro and his counsel failed to develop one they had the full opportunity they could have called witnesses and they could have had additional testimony additional cross examination additional documents whatever they thought necessary in this hearing to establish the point well they didn't do it in the thirty twenty eight you really don't have you know a major right to conduct discovery which of course you had in this action the issues in the action before us are much greater much broader than the issues in the thirty learn what did we learn in discovery that changes that outcome well i agree with you that  there shouldn't be collateral estoppel because now we've had the opportunity for discovery what smoking gun or not so smoking gun was found in the discovery that is that official to you where i i always discovery right in the hearing all those circumstances if it's a question of the things that he already knew that could have been done well i think in this case there were there was evidence of the remarks that were made by the by the principal and the assistant principal which certainly can be construed to be exactly but weren't those things that i mean mr ferraro is the one who heard those remarks and testifies to them he could have testified to that i mean i don't know whether he did or didn't testify to the same honour's name is eleanor abbott i'm here on behalf of the defendants it's our position that collateral estoppel does bar all of the claims here for the reasons really that your honour's were pointing out it's clear from the both the transcript from thirty twenty hearing and the very lengthy decision that all of the issues of discrimination and retaliation that are presented in this lawsuit were also presented their considered and determined the hearing officer did state that there was no animists as motivation and that there was no no wrongful  animists and that and in addition the hearing officer found that there were legitimate reasons related to the deficiencies in mr ferrars teaching that supported the decision and that led to the decision we disagree with the district court that the hostile work environment claim is not collateral is stopped because all of the issues that the plaintiffs seems to raise on hostile work environment claim were also litigated in the thirty twenty a hearing and again the hearing officer said that there was no wrongful  decision and the it's really unclear actually what the plaintiff is claiming constituted the hostile work environment claim as we know in our brief in their brief there were no facts discussed at all there's two and a half pages of law and a few lined paragraph just saying look at the record and basically you'll find that there was hostile work environment so but but even assuming that it is all of the actions that he complained about regarding discrimination aren't and that he now is saying constituted a hostile work environment those were all addressed by the hearing officer who again found that there was no wrongful animus and that all of these actions were taken to address the deficiencies in the teaching which we discussed at length in that he number right but i'm not sure that the that the district court the but the district court felt that yes that it wasn't but sorry that the  facts did not support the hostile work environment claim but i was just talking about whether collateral for a stop all should apply with the district my question sorry you don't want to weigh in on the ground the district court entered summary judgment on you want to win only on collateral a stop no not only on collateral stop all that was just our first point but i thought that since we did take a different position than what the district court decided on that one point i would mention it since we were talking about collateral estop but moving on to the merits even if this court feels that collateral stoppel does not apply to some or all of the claims really for the big reason that the that the defendant stated legitimate nondiscriminatory anon or tell you tory reasons for their ac to add and this is related to something that was addressed on the appellant's argument was that he made reference to the fact that there were remarks and your honour's pointed out that of course he could have testified to the remarks  and because he would have heard the remarks but even aside from the collateral estoppel point the only remarks that are even discussed anywhere in this record having to do with his disability were one time in two thousand and seven where the principal asked who was then he was the principal and who asked him how he was feeling which gave no inference at all that it was discriminatory or that he was acting against him in some reason because of it and the one by mr slipper who whom he had told himself years earlier of his disability he made a comment to him that despite has medical condition he had excellent attendance so again even if you look at the even if you look at the remarks that are in the record there's no inference of discrimination there and the same is true about the retaliation all the plaintiffs cites about retaliation is that both slip in an honor a admit that they were unhappy about being sued but again we would say that that vase of activity is mostly old the issues about once he performing well in the classroom so the question that would naturally arises the same one that arises when you look at those incidents individually when you look at them collectively as to whether there was a discriminatory motive for all of this occurring or was it a legitimate inquiry into his performance and that's that is the question that was asked at the hearing and the hearing officer concluded there was not that is the question that the district court addressed in saying there is no evidence of a hostile environment it's not that all these things didn't happen in terms of investigations and reviews and criticism it's a question of what was a day stunt and i submit that there is a sufficient evidence of of animas and then you give me like the two indicates that the principal directly referred to my client's health and that he choose that he could refer him to a department of education doctor to determine if he was healthy enough to work so and after my client objected to that statement the principles that if that's the way you want it get out and wait in the hall so i believe that's certainly more more harsh a statement then  counsel attributed to him and then during the meeting he was on a very threatening tone spoke very negatively about the plaintiff's health with reference to his ability to perform the job duties then at another time he told plaintiff that because of this health he would consider giving pla time concededly with e m s was affecting his ability to perform his job his organization skills his ability to complete things in a timely manner his ability to emulate it he was having difficulty even standing in the classroom he could not walk through the hallway without difficulty and the and the claim here is just that he wasn't accommodated the heat and humidity in the classrooms had a very negative effect on  performance ratings he asked for air conditioners have a lot of the times condition is not working but the combinations are there's a disability coordinator who responded to his request mr brut with wills so we get around the classroom he's relieved of his a square duty for students so there were conversations where those were the accommodations in theory but in practice the excuse me or did he get that stuff not not a lot of it he he didn't get regular working at conditioning he never he claims he never got the the portable air conditioner you know the window type of  difficulty and then he was exempted from that excuse me that he was exempted from the third floor right but do so rather than being accommodated by being able to perform the assignment on the first floor this time it was just taken it taken away from him altogether so how was that an accommodation if it was just taken away from him altogether for the teacher preparation time before in five minutes they said what use use it for instead of doing those duties just use the time to prepare but he was one of the deficiencies right but he thought that wasn't an a dation of the bottom line here is that he had serious disability here he was always is a successful teacher and to ask the disability got worse the defendants you know preyed on the disability and took advantage of the disability because he was so vulnerable and he went from being an effective teacher for twenty as to being in an effective teacher and why does that happen if there is that happened because of his disability to feel you to accommodate it and that the individual defendants just kept praying and praying and on disability taking advantage of the disability until the time he was terminated thank you your honors thank you mr won't will reserve decision on this appeal