mr keller mourner honors christopher killer on behalf of the appellant context is critical in the context of mr kolaches employment creates issues of fact precluding summary judg this court is this court well knows the legal question is whether the evidence could permit a reasonable juror to conclude the quad just terminations was caused by his religion not whether reasonable  necessarily find as much bus whether khwaja could prevail a trial is another question entirely but he has presented enough to get there well khwaja is employment record is missteps that he has created or committed were those of a rookie agent zealous in his job someone trying to prove his mettle and given the subject matter terrorism and serious crimes that's not a bad thing you know the district court essentially disregarded the context of this case heard for example herndon twice failed to give miranda warnings heard and also failed to apprise the west bend police chief of their high school visit earned and also took an intelligence issue that's part of the judge man and with due respect to the magistrate judge her analysis is is very short very brief and it doesn't give a full flavor of what this case is about  frankly i don't think you can reconcile the record with the judge's analysis and what i mean by that is as a juror points out there's no comparison between herndon and co i she briefly mentions herndon in the background section of the opinion but in the analysis there's absolutely no comparison there is also a complete disregard of the context of mr khwaja complaints of  mocked religious phrases being used in a comical manner and finally there is no absolutely no mention at all in the opinion of agent jones's not or typical age of remark so again with he additionally inter mr green head to two supervisors of bug him and that were that was mr jones and miss carlson but mr green against spearheaded this germination  and he was the individual who routinely spouted islamic phrases and made ethnic jokes in the office and that that was in the record so so again and that's he in the middle but he also had enough influence because it in essence agent jones excuse me and human director human resources director turkle essentially just signed off my question sort of is that is that would that be something that if you were to remain did you were the i guess it's the same judge a magistrate judge expound on the fact of why he is or is not a well firstly we would ask for a full remission for trial but if the court you know in its opinion instructed the judge to consider that obvious it would be i think yes would you show is missing i don't know maybe there's more and no i  assert that that is that is that is missing from the court's opinion and if the judge consider that on remand then obviously you know we would we would make the argument again that mr he was a compare because he began one month just just one month after khwaja started he had the same supervisor mr green and most importantly and what i think makes this case somewhat unique although i know most attorneys claim it is is the fact that the compared are made many of the missteps and many of the mistakes that the plaintiff made and what's troubling here is that the to mr herndon i would say not muslim was not only was never punished or if he did not terminate it but he was never even written up so there's a blatant inconsistent and uneven treatment between these two individuals all replied to some of what he put in his reply today but judge joseph decision was squarely based on one of most important things in a summary judgment motion and that's rule fifty six the plaintiffs responses to the government's proposed findings of fact you will see significant admissions admissions admissions and that's exactly what judge joseph focused on her decision in finding that he did not meet a significant element of his standard of proof and that's that he met the employer's legitimate expectations he admits that he didn't it didn't miranda her eyes that that prisoner council did mention that he argued with special supervisory special agent green about the correlate with his own boss as a rookie that he shouldn't he didn't have to give the miranda rights not a wise thing to do as a rookie to argue with your boss of whether the priority of whether or not you should give a prisoner miranda rights herndon was part of that interview that's admitted as well but he didn't have previous law enforcement experience as the point of having to work for ice part in homeland security and he didn't argue with his boss granted he did later the facts of when it happened the second time or more fist there's very little in the record about the fact that it happened a second time or how that impacted any of his work after that plaintiff admits to the west bend high school  there's no dispute that he did that that he didn't give the police chief notice there's no dispute that the police chief was not pleased with that but each tried to reach the special agent in charge of the f b i in the walk you to complain about this know beyond beyond that the as acting director of human resources james turbo who was the decision maker there's no going to mislead this court the west bend this incident was especially significant to him for the reasons your honor just mentioned keeping good relationships with other law enforcement entities that's where judge joseph stop because that shows he didn't fulfill he didn't meet his his employers would get him in expectations of suitability standards are obviously legitimate standard they're not pretext  that's why there was no subsequent analysis in the judge's decision on similarly situated employee herndon it's interesting there was another comparative or at least in this record level who was also a probationary officer who apparently had appeal no one is claiming that he was treated differently as far as herndon is concerned  and i think it says something like in for ice and forces the immigration and naturalization act is no arrest powers over american citizens in that capacity point of interview subject immigration purposes without miranda warnings a point to try to explain to greet significantly that is followed by absolutely no citation to the record the record appears to be limited to the fact that the plaintiff previously worked as an ice agent i think it was from two thousand and eight two thousand and twelve i may have my dates wrong but it was more than a year there's just nothing in the record about what his duties were or how that impacts on green's decision to be upset with him for not giving us he was a law enforcement agent herndon wasn't herndon didn't argue or correlate with his boss he moved on whether he agreed or not the plaintiff did  so if the court chooses to get to the to the similar situated prong of this ice i think the evidence still makes clear that the that he didn't treat he didn't mean that element proof either that hernan was a similarly situated employee who was treated differently because of his not being islamic and i think the evidence also shows there's no pretext must be something else i'll conclude my calm investigation or undermined any mission again he was he was being zealous in his uppercuts and if these missteps were so significant as the defendant claims we would ask why at the six month