honors the district court erred in granting summary judgment in this case for one reason the district court in correct we've looked at whether g s k had articulated  plausible explanation for terminating mr hemmer that is not the inquiry the inquiry is whether mr hemmer has set forth anough to show that the terminations was motivated by something when an employee twice threatens to kill coworkers it's hard to imagine any employer that wouldn't a crazy and b get him out of the work well you know i thank you for that question and that's an excellent question and here's why it's different just kate wants to have it both ways on the one hand they say what you are saying that these statements were so bad that of course they have to terminate him now you know you've got disability issues you've done they've put him on administrative leave right that is true and then the chain never came back to the workplace he did not return to the work was but it's not he did not return to the workplace not because of those statements and that's that's my proper inquiry though for this court or for the district court the inquiry is whether mr hemmer has shown that there are competing plausible inferences for this horse rolling in traverse which was this  we have to be convinced basically that it's plausible that they would him brought him back into the workplace but for the desire to retaliate for these other reasons they have virtually problem with with this case in that regard when you read those statements on a piece of which is what your audience had before you and what judge obo had before her i will admit those statements don't read in a positive light there's no question about that but that's not the context of what was going on in two thousand and four it doesn't matter it does it does no you are absolute there was no those statements are per se statements to do harm to other people the other people know about the harm that he  continue as a coworker with these people you know there's no there's very little evidence if any evidence that these threats were taken seriously suppose if threats were taken seriously at the time in other words nobody  relevant at all take it is given that he was it was a lower and there was some merit to it yes my point you are mentioning that is that just a has on clean hands here this is not a white knight company that can come into this court and say what are we to do we're us that's not the situation just a was involved in some a very very bad thing illegal marketing paxil to pregnant women causing birth defects d wired to dallas where the statements were made mr herrick was already exhibiting signs of being frustrated and being in a volatile situation the company knew that he had taken a medical leave the company was aware of that when he comes back from medical leave they sit down to talk to him and in the interview they are concerned that he is not well to come back to work they talk about putting him on administrative leave they talk about setting him for fitness for duty exam but notably they don't leave legal illegal gets involved i'm sorry you took three minutes to use later ok yes thank you   the resolution of the following question which has really been previewed by the pill if an employee has threatened to kill specifically named supervisors and coworkers while also holding yourself out as a  claims act whistleblower under what circumstances is the employer lawfully permitted to terminate that employee the courts have recognized that whistleblowers including statutorily protected was a blowers are not immune from disciplinary accountability or misconduct if the motivation of the employer's disciplinary action is independent of retaliatory intent accordingly in this case the critical protective conduct was treated more favorably than the whistleblower a ploy what do you say to counsel's point that well it is plausible that they would do this fellow back because during the period when he was out on suspension employees had somehow come up with a satisfactory explanation of why he had done or said these threats there might be a path back that's not to say it's us that is not honor if the company say we're willing to give you an interview to listen to your side of the story and when you put his remark in that context i think they're saying we have grave concerns here that's why we want to talk to you that's why we want to have this interview but we're we're not determining the result we want to hear what you have to say then we will make our decision and then we think that threats posed to other employees and of course throughout this time he was maintained on administrative leave with with pay but the company was not taking any chances on having him around until they finish their process so that the so called inconsistency we think is not is that it's really a loser e the company took decisive appropriate action immediately after doing an investigation right away about these complaints while that conference was still going on in dallas and then informing mr hamrick that he would be wanted ministry of belief but this wasn't a simple or just your regular you know potentially employee this was your potentially homicidal employee who was also making allegations about improper marketing practices and the company had a responsibility to try to  understand what those allegations were and follow its policy of your employees to talk about that so they can do their own investigation of whether management needs to take corrective action so the this additional time there were you know there are a couple of pieces that went into why it took a number of months before the final action was taken one was the effort to negotiate a severance agreed we think it's just that's perfectly conventional if you have a difficult employ somebody you'd rather not have around it's preferable if you if you're willing to pay some severance to negotiate a severance agreement try to get an appropriate release and that's all behind you and you're looking ahead at a future expensive litigation counsel at the time for mr hammer it frustrated that and then eventually the company said look this doesn't look like you're really interested in cooperate and we feel we have enough evidence based on the investigation of we've already done and we believe the appropriate thing to do is determine a true and remove make sure you you are not a threat to our other employees looking at a loss i understand that you're out of it in the context of the other things that were happening in this case that's why i think that that policy argument falls apart i do understand what you're saying absolutely short of a couple of other point this fact that he's a whistle blower said that they did not suspect that no they gave and the normal process that happens almost every employer in this country is very wary about being sued by an employee that they terminate i don't see how this so called factual dispute has anything to do with your claim here they were that is a fact they were aware of that instead of transferring him to florida as requested instead of investigating his claims or tell you ition is that of investigating a claim that mr hammack son was being harassed they didn't do anything they left him in the pressure cooker but he wasn't he wasn't no no your honor prior to dallas prior to dallas when he came back from medical necessity that he was in a pressure cooker situation fact kay had concerns that he wasn't ready to return to work that's a fact they wanted him to take a fitness for duty exam legal comes in because they suspected he was a little even though they don't admit it legal comes in shrouded in privilege and says no leave him where he is send them to dallas in this volatile situation and yes something did occur but it was they had a feeling that something might occur they want to you when you've taken your time does the policy argument your honor that we encourage employers to leave people in these situations until something happens thank you so much