walgreen's retaliated against her district manager michelle burch made the decision to reject ms baines firm point at walgreens and then she lied about her dishonesty and titles a jury to infer that she acted with a retaliatory motive in addition there is other evidence in this case that ms birch had anim this was a deviation from walgreens standard hiring practice because the pharmacy manager is reese had authority to hire whom she wanted usually in the pharmacy and ms reese wanted to hire ms things because she had a lot of walgreens experience she knew the system well ms reese liked her and thought she would be a good fit with her team silence in that meeting with regard to these hostile remarks acted as an endorsement of those remarks no one contradicted mr smith's intimidating and hostile remarks regarding  charge there is also evidence that walgreens took actions to erase evidence that mrs baines had ever been interviewed her  interview scores are missing in discovery walgreens produced a list of the candidates who had been interviewed for the pharmacy technician position walgreen's own employees testified that the interview scores were entered into their computer system after every interview right away there was never any reason not to put the scores i nto the computer they always did this the pharmacy manager said she took notes during interviews including ms baines of interview and that she only threw her notes away after scores were entered into the computer and she threw away her notes from his feints interview so the reasonable inferences that those scores were entered into the computer we do not have those scores today walgreens has never produced them and never explained what happened to them again the reasonable inference is that they were destroyed when you look at that evidence and in combination with the fact that the pharmacy manager made false statements to the e e o c and denied even interviewing this pain's i knowing who she walgreens probably jealous of her while going to knows better i think she had quite a few responsibilities and multiple stores yes for the whole store operation or just pharmacy i believe for the whole store operation and it in the process that we're talking about here was a just one position that was being filled or were there multiple positions as i believe it was one physician a pharmacy technician however i do think there were continuing interviews over a period of time because we got a list from june of two thousand and fourteen through august of two thousand fifteen and everyone interviewed for a pharmacy tech position so the interviews continued over time ok so we did ms martin for example was she hired for the position that ms bean's wanted certain i'd say i believe so i can't say with one hundred percent certainty the timing of their two applications interview was was very close within a week or  two i do think it's important to address the time interval issue in this case as this court has said repeatedly in many cases the time interval between a protected activity and adverse employment action is not dispositive interestingly this is a failure to hire case it's not a determination case like the cases cited by walgreens and it's brief and the difference is significant regina baines was gone from walgreens between the time for a last e e o c charge and the time that walgreens failed to hire her there for walgreens had no opportunity to retaliate against her during that time interval and it took the first opportunity it had when she applied again in two thousand and fourteen to retaliate against her what the time interval represents in this case is really an issue of credibility involve employees who had continuing relationships with their employers before they were terminated or laid off so their problem is explaining why there are foregone opportunities for the employe against her there is a substantial amount of evidence and conflicts in the record credibility issues that entitle ms payne stewart trial i think to cumulative of the act of the evidence is to present a picture reese that mr burch made this hiring decision she says from that a jury can infer that mr burch was not truthful about her role in the decision but from that potential fact issue she th jury could then infer that birch acted based on some retaliated retaliatory animists that she has been apparently harboring for more than seven years based on charges filed seven years ago the only thing that this record stablish is that most is there is a fact issue as to who made the decision but there is no basis to find a fact question on cuz they sion which is whether but for mrs baines charges in two thousand and seven and two thousand and nine what have been rehired by walgreens and there is no evidence to establish that retaliatory link if you look at miss martin's testimony she says hannah reese told me she ms banned but she says miss reese did not told her i don't know why i couldn't hire her she didn't say there was any discussion of charges in fact miss reese had no knowledge  statement about the world that's a command she her words were i was told that i couldn't hire her if she's repeating a statement i couldn't hire her and i don't think that that's not a command i don't the district manager i don't think it was testified to that effect right and what that agent said was i was commanded not to hire baines so that comes in so we've we've got that and that's got to be you know  and once you've got a fact issue about who made the decision you've also got fact issues about the honesty of the people denying who did or did not make the decision right but that's where you don't have enough of a fact question and you don't have  given all the other evidence the deviation from standard procedures the disappearance of the scores and so on and so with respect to the deviation from the hiring technicians i hire the managers who are then responsible for managing so yes that would be unusual but we don't have as any explanation one for why birchwood have got involved it is not fair to assume that that is based on a karma scitech so i wouldn't i wouldn't bring her back if i were you so we don't know we don't know what burch might have relied on and when you go back i mean i think two things are important to pay to factor in is the passage of time here both in terms of you know animists and even memory ms burch testified and it's it's now been discredited other than by this one statement that she didn't remember those charges and it's very much not been discredited except for this one statement it's summary judge dissembling to cover up or it's a discriminatory purpose here circumstantial evidence here is dishonest explanation we must assume for perhaps a summary judgment missing scores extraordinary intervention by source so the missing spores came up in connection with the underlying e o c charge in this matter when when it they went back and said who is this regina baines did she applied when the chief and the company didn't find the scores and know that she actually applied so it was not discovered until later we don't know whether they were ever in put it who was responsible for inputting and if they were included who might have taken them out there's absolutely no explanation as to those scores but we do know is miss reese was the about the issue back to two reeves though is is the explanation dishonest i don't think you can include there's a dishonest explanation as to the reason for not not higher even if you  birch made it might have meant that made the decision there is no evidence in the record as to why so i don't think you can and jump to the conclusion as the district court found that it must have been retaliatory because if you go back to two thousand and seven counsel reference this these comments by to various smith who was a pharmacy supervisor at the time he's not tied to the twenty four team decision what was what the record shows at that time well bertsch was pre burke said allegedly asked his fans what she wanted well that's a reference to a resolution that's not a reference to any kind of animosity there is no evidence that ms berg agreed with what the coworker is alleged to have said she but what do you want to what do you watch result of this that's an olive branch that's not we don't want to hear about it go away and that's that's evidence in the record estimates birches mindset at that time and subsequent to that there's no evidence as to what ms burch whether she continued to hire had any animist in two thousand and seven in first place and whether she continued to harbor this animals for seven years and used you know the opportunity for seven years later to deny score with regard to the meeting where the hostile remarks were made miss birch asked mrs paine's what she wanted and ms bain said she wanted to transfer to a different store she had filed a discrimination complaint  did to the way the pharmacy was run there and she asked for a promotion to senior pharmacy tech where she got neither so i think the reasonable inference from that  burch really didn't intend to give her what she wanted and when management makes hostile remarks in a meeting and no one contradicts them and they stand out there as intimidating presumably  ego see complaint it's fair to infer that those hostile remarks represented walgreens feelings and all of the management know if the evidence of when she said she didn't make the hiring decision she was dishonest when she said she didn't retaliate that alone should allow this decision to be reversed and finally ms baines did not argue that pharmacy manager reese got rid of the interview scores she argued that the scores were missing and that was evidence that walgreens got rid of it it doesn't matter if ms reese didn't know why she couldn't hire ms baines she did what the district manager told her to do and she herself she didn't have to have the analysts and she didn't have to get with the scores they were in a computer system so presumably others at walgreens has had access to the computer says