he was working for the v a as a dental assistant he was the only male he was the only disadvantage and he also had been a veteran everything for three him started out  two thousand and eleven when he started working for dr stampede that's where everything started generating for him that he was being treated differently because of his sex and his  because the fact that the doctor actually preferred to interact with female assistants rather than itself so generally he found that he was not having the working conditions that something where if he didn't agree with the way he thought the conditions of employment were he would actually bring forth those particular complaints to me and not the other thing actually looked at in particular the statement of additional facts by the defendant which actually listed numerous facts that the plaintiff head with their final agency decision about the different ways that they were being treated that he was being treated which ultimately created i felt a tremendous amount of material dispute that the issue is the court did analyze many of the facts and the statement of additional facts by the defendant however didn't look like he basically looked at some of the things that were explanations of the facts that the judge analyzed the defendant where he felt that the facts were supported for the plaintiff in particular a d basically i can identify and they're one of the major ones that the court seemed to to look at was the temperament of my client or his expectations where he looked at one of the major issues seem to be the short tempered where that the judge seemed to feel that there was some issue well if you just took the  of the way it was laid out by the defendant well that there was a system as short concise stake however within the statement of the  it also explained out some of the reasons that he felt he was short tempered one of them was not being able to use a computer which just says ok so what short tempered because a computer well it and what it is is big he didn't get to do one of the job part of his job is the schedule so he's got a duty and he's trying to do their duty and his  supervisor dentist dr stamping is obviously impairing his ability to to learn or to get involved in this which is part of his growing because he was on probation the other was short tempered basically because he in the operating room which they just didn't follow up on a fuller explanation was that he basically didn't know how to do an x ray now when we look at the fact that short tempered which i think was spelled out by the the court as being a decision it would look to one that when i a person goes to work they look for some kind of demeanor between themselves and their supervisor that's going to help them look forward to coming to work i believe that if you are in a situation and you're going to work and all of a sudden  there it's going to affect your performance which in this case to some extent it would because when one client wasn't getting the treatment that he lay he would complain about it he actually didn't file as an e o complaining about the treatment that si males are treated better that he's not being subjected to proper working conditions and then there seems to be a plan of doing much the color yellow line letter of inquiry  basically that is the steps towards moving out of the organization the letter of inquiry that caused him his demise was basically he ten put away some operating room or surplus clothing and when he was questioned about it he he said he actually been taking care of patients so basically he gave an extended and extensive idea of why he didn't feel that it was proper to get the yellow way but basically they didn't care and  wound up causing us removal but again throughout the complaint that the judge had looked at there were plenty of material disputes that i think that this court by analyzing our statement of additional facts and looking at the facts that it's unusual to have a court actually pull in all of the facts that were alleged in the final agency decision into its own work the other thing is that females were taken and mort examinations and my client was and it seems like there is an important issue of why why would i mean i could go through some of the facts that the court had actually going over i mean part of the deal is according to perfect two it's in there that the basically he was told because of his attitude which is reporting to be a conduct is he could be terminated for mr smith rather than go through all your evidence can i just ask you what one of them won or two pieces of evidence that you think most clearly show discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or gender i'd say that the failure to take him and the board visit is failure to allow him to go to training i think those are some of my own why do you attribute that to him permissible discrimination because if you're taking in allowing somebody a better opportunity even employment to learn the positions of dental assistant it and especially when you're on probation it's certainly in pairing your abilities to get the quality that you're being instructed that you're responsible for perhaps but why why why do you draw the inference that it's on the basis of race or at her ethnicity or gender because the obviously a female and who's not hispanic is this in which individual you have in mind there was  responsibility of anybody in a supervision to make the conditions of employment promote the one to learn their position so that and also to also assist them like if if he doesn't feel his conditions of employment are correct and he's complaining about some of the conditions that i'm explaining to the court and they take off a that certainly inhibits the person's ability to want to speak out perhaps but your clients complete your client is complaining is he not against against the backdrop of a record at the same point in they said it's an act them the insubordination but he there's nothing that shows that he knew that there was against being able to record that and again just advising the court that he's taking his tape recording the medical medical advice right excuse me he's tape recording a conversation between a doctor and a patient i'm assuming that part of that is concerning himself too or or again maybe you could become a whistleblower situation could  thinks there's an offensive thing that's taking place that it's against the patient's own interest and maybe it could be that he believes that there could be a point that he believes down the road he may have to me please the court counsel afraid o'bryant was hired at the v a in june two thousand and eleven to work as a dental assistant for the next three and a half years he demonstrated his complete inability to get along with his supervisors multiple supervisors his coworkers and at times patients within eight weeks of him being fired he was warned that he could be terminated for not getting along well with others he had a meeting with two of his supervisors dr william str dr peter binney to discuss his behavior and during that meeting he yelled he interrupted and he stormed out his first review which was within three months of being hired he was told that he had lost his composure multiple times and that he had a hard time and was resistant to direction dr stripy testified that there was one particular incident in which mr of rego got so upset that he refused to speak with dr shrimpy for three days when a dental assistant speak with his dentist for three days that's that affects patient care in two thousand and twelve mr pryor received a letter of counseling it indicated that he had repeatedly interrupted dr stransky it also indicated that he had an argument with the patient the patient was laying in his chair mr o'brien got angry mr old rego was clenching his fist increasingly more angry he then later refused to work with the patient and he also labeled the patient a problem patient the letter consing also indicated that he had an incident in which he shouted out a coworker within nine months of mr o'brien being hired at the v a dr stripy testified that dr strappy attempted to resign twice because he could not work with mr bragg and the working situation had gotten so stressful for dr strappy by late two thousand and twelve mr gregory received a letter of inquiry which indicated that he had made inappropriate sexual remarks to coworkers he matter of inquiry it also indicated that he had made unwelcome and aggressive remarks to a coworker during the meeting once again he was also reprimanded for yelling at a coworker and as your honor pointed out in january two this was his opportunity to right the ship maybe make better to search decisions about his behavior work but things continued to go rock there was one incident in which he started yelling at m said can you please keep your voice down and he said you haven't heard me yell yet another area another interaction was during dental assistant meetings where there was multiple dental assistants during one meeting he started yelling he told mr p adic that she didn't know how to do her job and she kept interrupting in another meeting she he yelled once again that she couldn't do her job that she shouldn't be a supervisor it became so bad and the meeting became so ineffective in this p x it had to terminate the meeting early problems of coworkers also continued to female coworkers tested two female coworkers reported that they felt that he had been threatening towards them another coworker another female coworker reported that she didn't feel comfortable being in the same room alone with mr bragg oh and she didn't want to be left alone ultimately mr a private was terminated in two thousand and fourteen not because as the cummins counsel points out because he failed to put lead ins away that was one that was one reason why he was terminated but more importantly the reasons why he was terminated was because of this disrespectful conduct towards his supervisor miss p adic multiple instances of this disrespectful  his termination he brought suit for race discrimination and gender discrimination a hostile work environment in retaliation however the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the v a concluding that his claims were based on pure speculation and that he was unable to come forward with any evidence whatsoever that he was the subject of discrimination a hostile work environment or retaliation as a preliminary matter matter your honour's counts four and five of the complaint have been waived plaintiff failed to exhaust those at the administrative stage they waived them at the district court level by not addressing arguments about waiver and exhaustion and he hasn't brought them up in the next my litany of discussion of this rotten doing demonstrates truth to specific reasons why he cannot prevail on his claims first he can identify a single individual who is similarly situated outside of his protected class and yet treated more favorably he identified six individuals but these individuals did not engage in the wrongdoing that mr o'brien gaged in and further he didn't come up with any evidence whatsoever that these individuals were actually treated more favorably once again it was based on pure speculation another reason why plaintiff cannot mr breyer cannot prevail on his claims is that he cannot demonstrate that the articulated reasons for mr for the v a s actions were lying or pretext for discrimination mr bragg admitted to recording his supervisor and that this is illegal and he was suspended for that he was also terminated because you also terminated because of these instances of disrespectful behavior finally plaintiff has put forth no evidence whatsoever of a hostile work environment he complains that he couldn't go on true he couldn't go on training when in fact the training was full he complains that his bosses were mean to him or made petty remarks this isn't a hostile work environment it's not severe it's not pervasive it's not threatening it's simply just not abusive finally the district court properly determined that mr cannot demonstrate retaliation because there is no causal connection between the e o complaints and the materially adverse action simply put mr ago presented the district court with zero evidence beyond his pure speculation and baseless assertion assertions to support his claims of race and gender discrimination retaliation and a hostile work environment unless the court mister i think one of the points that the major points that should be given to the council begin with was the not getting along with dr stampede into something about that he was quiet for a period of time issue actually call my client retard he took great offense to that and dr stampede was basically there and didn't protect and basically because of that rather than argue with they're trying to pre trained him as some posters person he just put it inside he became quiet that's like a material dispute within itself it's fire is not getting along with people as i said so far that there's no secret that my client if he sees something if he sees a problem he pointed out he brings forth any kind of issues whether somebody likes it or not to indicate his displeasure about what particular is going on whether it be a k the patients not being traded treated right or if the patient himself is acting up he has a duty to say something just because it's a patient doesn't mean patient's right all the time that means filed a couple complaints that have followed him right to this point he's not going to be a very light person by the next supervisor that comes in this fire is the co workers again just saying that if he sees something he doesn't like he says something as far as since my time start to go i'd like to at least hit one important issue of apparent problem that i think the judge had in his final  ruling in regards to the retaliation issue where the judge did look at the time frame between an ego and an adverse employment action the judge did look at the adverse employment action for the third fellow i letter of inquiry in his statement on page eighteen of his opinion he looked at the period of time between october third two thousand and fourteen on november nineteen twenty four twenty forty and i propose remove and he found at just the seven week difference was nat that significant but i would think that it is significant he did look at the prior one where