the system year there was supposed to be rotation in this factory where people would not get repetitive motion injuries by alternating jobs but his supervisors the supervisors in his supervisor at least gave all the cushy jobs to his friends and that did not include mr people but he demanded rotation chrysler agreed with them and they instituted rotation but that in just problems because the men he was working with harassed him because of it also into instances assaulted him and his supervisors look the other way didn't didn't sanction these these men who are estimate all and in fact following the institution of the the rotation continue to tell mr peoples that he was not injured he didn't have a disability claims mr people's letters tell his side of the story they tell his side of the story about how he was harassed and yet he was blamed for others harassing him that's why you want to or you think th en that he was using those in the youth of letters to show that a company with put on notice after what was going on but then that's one way but then also using the the letters as i understand it for the truth of his version of as you said his side of the story and there's two bases i thought i mean as to that point isn't that a classic hearsay problem well i think that the other side his side of the story would be the truth of the may were committed is substantive evidence and they were admitted as exhibits could you tell the jury you can only consider this for the defense case and not for the plaintiff's case there is a read you can't do that but you can say they were admitted for a limited purpose as to both parties that's happens all the time well i think that they also were medicine miscible under the recorded recollection except perhaps equally importantly i can't figure out why that dispute makes a darn bit of difference here the questions at least with respect to this harassment that you talked about that happened back in two thousand and eleven and he gets fired at the end of two thousand and fourteen right right and that's three years ago three hundred homes were going to work environment claimed the judge was correct what happened in two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve is background why does this case come out any differently than if the letters had come and then if the letters had been utilized for the purpose for which i think on the claim of  discrimination on the basis of basis of disability and retail the ation the letters don't make any difference because what the judge recognized on both of those claims in both federal and state law that my client had stated a official case you don't have to explain what why they're relevant ok for claims for which they don't matter there must be some claim you think they do matter so which one is that also work environment the judge said that the two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve since could be background that he felt they were background to nothing at all in other words that there was no hostile work environment in two thousand and fourteen try to figure out why the letters change that conclusion the judge made because the established the factual background for what happened in two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve there wasn't any dispute about what that background was was or well there was a  the fact that chrysler blamed my client for the other people who who were hostile towards him and he denies that he was the but my point is the incidents happened is to blame for them there were three years ago the judge said they can be back around but they're too they're too old basically so what difference does it make it just seems like this is kind of us frankly a silly place to be taking your stand on these letters i mean maybe what you're suggesting is we should talk about the five day letter and whether your clients do that that's where i was headed your way might be a good place to go because that's where i was headed because i don't think we can get to the issue of whether the which was sent out i think on the on the twenty fourth of october two thousand and fourteen by october thirty first his my client was told you to report to h r in last on or before that date he delivers t o documents substantiating the reason for his absence so if he had not even appeared at the factory but submitted some document in writing his his doctor's note stating that he was had p d and was was off from work until february if you just mailed it in there would satisfy you what i don't understand about that claim and it may reflect a misunderstanding of what actually happened here he gets this letter let's assume that he either complied with the requirements stated on the face of the letter before he went into the plant or let's assume that showing up with the material complied with the terms of the letter my understanding is what happened is they told your client to sit there to stay there until a doctor could come in and talk to him about what was in the letter and that your client said your client didn't say anything i don't think he just decided he was going to wait around for the doctor to call so he left that was that is that it's factually true that he was being paid for all of this time so it isn't as if he was there is a volunteer and and and there was no legitimate expectation that he would do it his supervisor said no he wasn't being paid for this he's not being paid i thought he was on leave during all this time while he was on excused leave but it was unpaid ok so he's on leave they tell him that they want him to do something and he doesn't do it so what seems to happen here is that that that that is the basis upon which now chrysler says that's why they fired the guy and why does that not get us to pretext and what is your guy do to overcome that being the reason why he was fired well there was nothing in the letter about staying to be evaluated and has to be satisfactory medical evaluation that's not solely something that you're in charge of or your clients and charged with didn't s  valuation my hypothetical is that your guy did what the letter said you did and when he was there they asked him or told him to stay so that they could discuss the letter that's what the satisfactory part deals with and you said yes that's what really happened so why can't he be fired for the reason that chrysler has articulated he shows up he gives the letter we assume it's satisfactory but we want you to stay so the doctor can see you and he leaves why can't they fire him for that the letter that he presented said he was still suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome that was because of instances a whole history two or three years their doctor to talk to this guy about the letter that seems imminently reasonable then why didn't they put it in the letter they said they said that he would be terminated less he complied with the letter he complied with the letter what where do you derive the obligation to put the fact that you may have to stay to talk to the to the doctor in the letter that's like saying supervisors have to send people on the line a letter that says what they want them to do i mean people don't use letters that way well that wasn't the basis point what are what i understand is that your client complied with have to come in but that that does take you to satisfactory that does make the word satisfactory relevant you seem to be saying he didn't have to come in all they did do was mail something in with a short little doctor's he's got p t s d and given three months off but i don't know how that gives content to the word satisfactory well chrysler has never stated that the it was not satisfactory and if it was no they say they stated what makes a lot of sense we want him to see our doctor right but why should he have to do that when he didn't even have to come in you may be ready to come in he did have to satisfy them and if you does it by letter he set real risk that he won't satisfy him and if he comes in and leaves immediately when they say we'd like someone else to look at you it's pretty easy to say that's not complying well the letter says accordingly you were to report to the plant employment office on or before october thirty first two thousand and fourteen unless on or before this date the plant employment office received satisfactory evidence as t sent it in and they said it was satisfactory and then they fired him anyway but that didn't happen he didn't send it in he brought it they asked him to then stay presumably to talk about what was in the letter what's wrong with that the man suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome he's come back to the place that triggers their condition and his doctor says stay away from that place so why would he stay there did he give a reason why he was leaving either at the time or afterwards when he was fired he says in his deposition did the doctors and the nurses were were were mean to me and hostile towards me and time give a reason at the time or at the time he received a letter saying he was fired in other words contemporaneously talking about depositions down the road did he explain why he left he never had an opportunity to explain why he left because the union although they filed a grievance late eventually did did never proceed with it  and what muse what it would've what about the five day letter i mean why why might we not be able to say that he technically complied with it i'm sorry he reported the five day letter you reported he did have an explanation presumably he thought it was satisfactory maybe it's not obvious from the letter who has to be satisfied he doesn't want to stay around there it's not a good place for him so he technically thinks he complied with it well he may determine whether your documentation is satisfactory satisfactory to chrysler he didn't so he was fired and if they had sent a letter and he hadn't come in he would have been fire standard protocol which he admitted and he'd gone through many times is you report to h r h r sends you to the plant medical office and you do then what the plant doctor asks you to do he had been through this process you know anytime the letter indicates that he has to report to plant employment h r or provide the documentation he reported to planned h r plan h r said go to but they don't take the medical records or the doctor's notes that goes to the plant medical office there's a specific doctor for that plant for every plant but for that plant in question he had done this many many times before he knew that he had to go and he admitted at his deposition that he knew that he would have to go to the medical office and he just decided he didn't want to wait he was told the doctor needed to see him chrysler has the obligation to determine whether someone is fit to work or not i mean that is the standard protocol and again mr people's admitted that testified to that at this deposition he knew that the plant medical office is the gate keeper to whether people are fit or not fit to work and he instead wanted to substitute his own judgment or his doctor's judgment or moving to the next thing would be admission of the employee medical record show that mr people's came to the medical office it shows that he submitted a note it shows that he was asked to stay and that he left so i don't think it changes anything i think those facts are all undisputed in other other parts of the record just as i don't think that the the latter is from twenty eleven twenty twelve it changed anything i mean like when i stepped up to the podium i said that this was a disability case disability discrimination case that he was fired because of his disability and he not only has to show it as a pretext to establish pretext that crisis reason was not accurate factually or sufficient but he also has to show that chrysler made that decision because of his disability and that's also  true for his hostile work environment claiming it has to be because of his disability and this record in this case is completely absent of such evidence and plaintiff's counsel even alluded to that when he first stepped up and talked about their rotation disputes that's the background that's what mr people's was leaning about whether the collective bargaining agreement was fun but was followed or not and that's what his  coworkers were upset about it's not about his disability he has no record evidence that the decision maker as to the terminations fred divine ever said anything negative about his disability mr divine testify didn't even know that mr peoples had p t s d there's no evidence that that other workers not disabled who also failed to follow the five day letter protocol were not fired he has no comparable outside of his protected class he has no evidence that anyone made regarding his terminations in the twenty fourteen incidents that anyone made any comments took any actions that demonstrate disability and in my space on the part of f c a and he has to prove both it's not just the reason they fired me wasn't the real reason it has to be that the real reason was because he was disabled and he has no such  transfer to the facility he preferred he got a written warning and he was terminated those are discrete acts which typically do not make their way into a hostile work environment claim i believe that distant in time place people different supervisors different coworkers and there were even those incidents those letters are really not even about his disability it's that rotational dispute but i do believe that that's why there's a hostile work environment claim here to try to sort of bootstrap and those incidents into the twenty fourteen incidents now but i think we got your main points all right very good i much never need to talk more if the court says it doesn't so i think the district court was absolutely correct in its ultimate decisions if perhaps and corrected on some of them around the edges and plaintiff claims should have been dismissed and should now be infirmed that dismissal should be a levy if your rebuttal the client had every right to believe that he was complying with the letter if you look at the employee medical record entries beginning july eighteenth two thousand and fourteen and ending a coke or seventh two thousand and fourteen there are three instances where he brought in documentation of his continuing medical condition and the last line a huge one was employe dropped out of paperwork and left there's no indication he was a failure waited he brought it is documents they were received and he left one of them still hung up on and so if you could address yourself to this is that even assuming that there wasn't this cost chrysler as your opponent says that there was about you show up at h r then they send you to medical and then you see a doctor even assuming that that's not true how do you get around the fact that it purely it's undisputed that they asked him to stay or to go see the doctor and he left your whole case seems to be has to be either well that didn't happen but it seems to me it did or well they didn't have any right to make my  stay and he could just wander off and self declare that the letter was satisfactory well that isn't the basis of the trial court dismissed and found no pretext for thrusting my client has p he has it from his show whole series years of incidents at this plant his doctor tells him you need to stay away from the plant for several months he comes back to do that he doesn't want to stay the doctor's not there this is the same doctor back in october they changed the restrictions that people stocked hers had had suggested according to restrictions opined and i am me they gave him said he could do more than it than his own doctor could he objected to the plant doctor in the plant doctor said i don't have any power to change this so why would he see someone who has no power to change these changed restrictions that have caused him injury he's already been told he's not you're saying that he was justified in leaving because he didn't like the doctor because the doctor didn't do it didn't do what you thought i'm saying this is part of his p s p t s d i'm saying that he's he says these are are in fear back in october he says i want to have rotation i want to have in a valium way ssion they tell me to go back to work he gets injured the doctor's not in he goes to the e r then the doctor who was in incomes to the work site to do the of illusion my client's not there and the trial judge says well it's your client's fault he wasn't there he wasn't there because he was injured so this they had treated him unfairly in the past that said i deserve all that from what you said let me explain something for instance soldiers who in afghanistan have witnessed their buddies being killed by children who are wired with bombs by the enemy they can't stand to be around children when they come back here if the past becomes the present that's what i'm saying and that's what i'm saying in the hostile work environment thank you and t