movement is to be believed in all justifiable inferences to be drawn in his favor and quote they cite interest in the liberty lobby and i know that the court is very familiar and i don't mean to lecture the court on the law but it's a point to start our appeal here because we have the same problem on this case we're here for the same problem the lower court did not credit our evidence and especially with the credibility of conflicting testimony diametrically conflicting testimony that was indeed crucial to the case and as well as crucial to their argument that the player made for the reasons for the termination that's the waddell declaration versus the waddell test deposition testimony and this is critical on the issue of retaliation and reprisal because as the core know is there are three elements to that protected opposition adverse action and causal connection and the district court found only cause of all connection lacking in our case but we did indeed provide ample factual support the regime we could rely upon to conclude for the plaintiff ms moves off here is what i think maybe of fine but important point here is that not so much that well we put it this way you're quiet at explanations for things that j c penney was said reasons for their actions but whether she was right about why she did things like moving documents or she was joking about going into the manager's office that question really isn't the way they see penny's managers and decision makers  we presented the declaration by the person of the company relied upon that said not only was every single reason given inaccurate but that she had been pressured to lie no l higher the alleged terrorists or or perpetrator a few well mr carney he provided a false and retaliatory complaint to the terminating super manager mr trials and and that was that was on august thirteenth and within weeks my client was terminated after a successful career that otherwise been going basically apel not just with j c penneys but with other employers are you saying that  i would i would the what we're saying is that they are harris or mr karna his complaint was false it was seized upon as a pretext to subject my client in the wake of just a few months ago complaining which i ranks and that that was a pretext that to subject her to heightened scrutiny to the level of that she went straight to terminations within a few weeks later in this is all documented this was the amazing thing if you look in this record and this o really urge the panel to do it because this is a case that i can't tell you you know here's the exact point where it all tipped it's a typical challenged very circumstance of the didn't leave messages but the actions speak louder for the work that louder than any wor writing which was then seized upon by mr mr trial the manager to subject who who then embellished the complaint and went straight into a terminations type interview in which my client answered all the questions that she could and then in that interview that led to her term nation which was in that it's not a coach it was an interview according to their terms that are the potential terminations my client was subject to criticisms for her interaction with the person she just complained on my client february absolutely not there's no sporting record for that our evidence in the record was that that never happened and all the way until she was marched out the door my client is asking the truman manager and h r what about this what about this complaint that i have against this charlene waddell the declaration that the that the lower that the lower court simply dismissed even though goes all our way in and induced her and pressured her to spy and report on behalf of mr child and this is not just of somebody who was chandra but this is key the employers terminations is absolutely wrong if ms what dell's decoration is believed but more than that it's causing action of us because it followed immediately upon the the on reasonable crediting of the pira sers caras written complaint this mr child the training manager documents and so the court was wrong again on this point and i don't know why but she says that they didn't rely on complaints against the car and not just from my client but from other women in the store he unreasonably creditors his ex what his complaint against the false complaint against my client he embellished it and he took on recently discounted all of her explanation so that should be time i would i would just say to the court that you nobody nobody should be subjected to having their career terminated because they posed unreasonably if illegal practice and that's what happened in this case and the court w her job in terms of making apprehensions and doing other things but heard her job involved more than simply stopping shoplifters it required her to interact with her team of other loss prevention officers appropriately as well as other supervisors and managers in the store and to just show other employees of the company the common respect and courtesy that we believe that all our employees are do with their personal research the creator to demorali two thousand and ten management had received complaints from lost prevention officers mr i believe it's pronounced a llama who was no longer there sent a long and detailed e mail about the difficulty in working with me  miswired elf who appears in numerous instances in this case had sent an e mail just days before the meeting complaining about her own difficulties in working with mr musa off prior to if i can address the waddell issue just for a moment some thoughts are they come up i think one of the things i think the district judge resolved this issue about whether there is in fact to confirm conflict that creates any sort of fact issue with regard else declaration versus her prior statements to j c penney management and with regard to her subsequent deposition testimony i think the important thing to remember here is at the to sneak into the store manager's office and the other matters the difficulty that she has in working with mr mused off and so forth so these other factors do not play a role in any decision makers  actions with regard to the terminations of her employment or her suspension a week prior to that with regard to both the retaliation in the claims it's important to remember that it is always ms musa off burden to show the discriminant of discriminatory intent regardless of any burden shifting regardless of anything else that remains her burden in this case from the get go and really nothing in her evidence or in and nothing in her briefing really even tries to make that connection she tries to rely merely on the fact that seven months prior to that this happened and what the evidence really shows is that the sole cause of her terminations was her string of prohibited conduct that flows from this august eighteenth meeting it's not her complaints about ms mr poe karna those complaints were taken a touched her she never made any other complaints about it that incident was over what seems to be her complaint now is that she disagrees with the employment decision made with regard to mr pickard that she believed that because he had done that that there was no opportunity for coaching there was no opportunity for reeva rehabilitation that the only proper decision that j c penney could make was that he be terminated and because she didn't get the result that she wanted she keeps asking about it that that doesn't necessarily mean that j c penney hasn't acted appropriately to the trial court also grid summary judgment on her sexual harassment claims and those have not been appealed here after she reported this instance she received a positive review now with regard to his music most positive reviews she is receiving positive reviews about her job in stopping shoplifting and theft in the stores but those review do contain coaching to improve her interaction with her team and other employees she also in may of two thousand and ten received a pay raise and with regard to the evidence that was presented in considered by the district court in granting the summary judgment appellant makes a great deal of complaint about what they did or didn't consider or how the court treated that evidence first of all it's important to remember that it's only the job of the district court to consider evidence in a light most favorable to the light the to the nonevent when there is a dispute as to that evidence here there's no dispute really complaint is in this court is that she's been hung with her own rope the diary entries the go on that they entered as evidence confirm every reason that j c penney gave for terminating this music off she may i say that a different spin should be put on those diary entries the spin that she wants but the fact that met form the basis of j c penney's decision to terminate our undisputed meeting the associates then complained and characterize that as retaliatory with regard to the complaints they had previously made against her and she their quote she was questioned about that by the store manager mr child she that she decided to pick and choose between the questions he answered to that he asked her as to which she would answer so she does not dispute that she refused to answer questions and as the circuit has held many times the circuit has made the decision not to act as a super personnel department in deciding whether she should have or should have answered those questions whether she should have been asked those questions or not by her managers but she doesn't dispute this she also doesn't dispute that she took documents there's a lot of discussion about whether those documents were confidential or not confidential j c penney own policies which was charged in many cases with him forcing make it clear that all nonpublic documents are confidential it's also an disputed that she should miss what dell notes from the meeting between her manager and his assistant and herself which certainly there's a good chance that those are confidential or would be considered such by the company and miss miss off would know this and then finally there is also no dispute that she tried to enlist  it made the decision to terminate her as a result the information that she offered was not in any way discounted instead the court gave complete credence even to her own diary interest which is far more than a jury would be required to do and as a result the only decision that the court could come to either under the title seven standard for for retaliation or under a mixed motive standard under the min human rights act was that there was no evidence linking in any way her complaints in january and february to the ultimate decision to terminate her in january of two thousand and ten and a here is my ten seconds everything that she said is not disputed that is not borne out by the record our brief documents with precision unlike their briefs the record in a careful and