i moved to the fourth case this morning taylor versus billie joe dalton enterprises chief cary hughes the individual fired mr taylor did not much like black people and he forced mr taylor out the door because of his race there was ample evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that mr taylor's race caused his discharge this evidence includes the repeated and in many cases it mid use of bio racial slurs i believe by mr hughes but also by taylor to lieutenant defendants manning  but you were cut off i'm not sure your question is whether we argue below whether taylor was not insubordinate or whether i'm sorry i take the test immediately as acknowledged by defendant manning that the order did not indicate that it had to be a blood test the collective bargaining agreement did not order that it would be a blood test mr taylor was insubordinate but mr duvall wasn't on duty on the day in question that mr hughes had made up his mind essentially parity in becoming chief the court he was guilty and he used the word scuttlebutt and rumor to support what he thought was an investigation he was also didn't speak to didn't bother to speak to manning or mccullough the two best people in a position to know what happened that day also that hughes the new the tailor had a pending complaint about taylor be discharged hughes admitted no one from the village was calling for his discharge and he was also admitted that he didn't have to fire it was solely his choice so your honor we argue that based on that there was there was no insubordination here and and i think equally that hughes did not honestly believe that he was in support of charges that address your question racist comments were not made around the time the termination decision or in reference to it citing a gun one versus cook county sheriff's department six o two and thirty four eighty five in fact this very second other words the district court although subsoil n t o the district court required a direct evidence between hughes's racial animus admitted racially and the discharge in other words they required in the words evidence of racial slurs at a decision maker because those players did not have anything to do with point to discharge play different not make out the direct evidence kit and ortiz says no wait a minute here you don't take this evidence here while all this evidence here and walled off and you don't have a case the court in ortiz although it didn't really announce a new standard to reach back several twenty years or so to go to the conclusion that you take all the evidence together you take the end of this evidence you take the question surrounding the just charge put a new one pile and you view it as a whole evidence is evidence all evidence must be placed in a single pile of god which is the whole and that is done here we have evidence one individual three individuals the three prime movers of this decision making racist statements much of which was admitted second to do all of us were clever enough not to state yes i mean you because of your race does not change the fact that a reasonable jury could look at all this evidence and make a very reasonable inference that hughes did not like black people and that's why he fired mr taylor on the issue of harassment your honor mr taylor also has a racial harassment claim and the district court acknowledged that there was ample evidence of racial hostility that would have been sufficient to avoid  summary judgment the only issue the district court raised in dismissing that claim was that there were no overt acts of racial hostility within the three hundred day limitations period and thus claim some time to figure out if the district court evidence of discrimination within the limitations period you look at the entire period and go beyond the three hundred look at the entire context you look at the good start i guess you could say and if hundred age requirement no your i believe it's the shan of case and that was followed up by the morgan case that says the song is there's an act within the three hundred day period you still have to show that it's linked at least the court counsel make two serious misstatements in response to chuck drove the nurse came forward first the collective bargaining agreement requires a blood or alcohol test because the contract requires that the test be subject to confirmation and one cannot confirm a breathalyzer test so the contract does require blood or alcohol of mr taylor ok that you consider yourself at risk for discipline in this matter yes you intentionally refused to take the blood draw rights yes and you know that refusing and or a blood test and he did take the breathalyzer the court will review exhibit twelve which is in the record which is a march eleventh statement from mr taylor  where he was writing to his union representatives and at the last four lines of that he talked about he met with the union and employees quote to discuss why i refused the blood test i explained that i'm scheduled to get my blood drawn in a week by my physician and that it was unnecessary to get my blood drawn for an alcohol test jerry meaning former chief mcculloch african american then state that because to my refusal of the blood test she felt it was insubordination and placed me on administrative leave until further notice those right here still not responding to my question i'm afraid or not not to my satisfaction at any rate he the legal water as it seems to be is that you have to the notice of interrogation used the and slashed or language but the contemporaneous statements by both mr mcculloch and mr taylor make it clear that the order was words and saying that african americans did not belong in the department because for summary judgment purposes with there be any reason not to infer that they still no animists a year or two later so is there any evidence that they changed their views yes there are at least three reasons to show how mr   uses decision was not racially motivated the first it's undisputed by plane if that mr taylor and mr hughes were friends secondly it is undisputed that mr hughes was concerned that his friend gordy taylor had a drinking problem that is why he initially offered mr taylor the opportunity to enter into what's commonly referred to an l c a or a last chance  under their belt there any an active x that he had an out of problem because he seems to have passed the one test if and at a time when a coworker claimed he smelled of alcohol there were well there were three separate occasions where there was a smell of alcohol in the firehouse connected with mr taylor but of course the point for title seven is did mr hughes believe mr taylor may have had a drinking problem and therefore was seeking to help him by negotiating this last chance agreement which would allow for him to just take a couple of days off or go to the the the only reference from hugh was undated years earlier and had nothing to do with mr taylor and was nowhere near contemporaneous to the decision that mr hughes made logic tells us that if mr hughes was hell bent firing mr taylor because of his race he would not have offered not only one but a second last chance agreement which would have allowed him to return to the job is plain if it miss that hughes thank him police who were to take the deal you're in for a fifteen thousand dollar race don't blow it in ubordination is a serious thing work with us on this taylor refuse not once but twice that in our mind the future the concept of discrimination now plate of mentions or that change is mcdonnell douglas in mcdonnell douglas says that is specter number two if a employer posits a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that it's up the plaintiff t show evidence of a pretext and again please recall anuradha just wrote about this a couple months ago in the feral versus the school district case if there's no evidence of pretext then whether it was a good decision bad decision or wrongful decision it's not a racially motivated decision that's the essence of summary judgment this context ortiz hasn't changed it about mr taylor argues  that the reason for the firings at the crawford reason for the firing was flimsy and this is why the evidence about what the collective bargaining agreement requires becomes critical because the in ination charge turns on whether or not he was in his rights and refusing to take the blood test and taking a breathalyzer in the alternative but if the collective considered that to be a serious violation so plaintiff has not offered any evidence to overcome the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason set forth by the employer for the action by the issue of harassment that the last comment ascribed to anybody hugh the only one but the last comment ascribed to anybody was well over a year before february of t those feelings a year or two later so i mean that that's a problem the we believe this court's address that problem by requiring comments that are police somewhat contemporaneous to the decision that that has been repeated several times by this court the number of cases i would respectfully submit that everything pivots back then to the decision by hughes and if you are and if you want to fire somebody because of their race you are not going to give somebody true separate opportunities to come back to work according to plane to syria they had a golden opportunity to fire taylor based on make the black chief said it was insupportable to spout that guy's recommendation but hughes exercised compassion in the face of a violation and in our mind the district court correctly found that when the chief is worried about somebody's drinking problem offers of e a p takes the e a p recommendation out of suspension and still runs against a brick wall in mr taylor he made a decision based on finding that can be made by as a matter of law as a matter of law we would say yes he liked him and he tried to help him  this court has twice at least twice since ortiz says that pretext analysis is still applicable in title seven cases and there is no evidence to show that the decision which were insubordinate you violated the contract and you have to be ultimately terminated for that agreement for that reason was pretextual there's nothing that would show they are on thank you much time and one i thank you judge i think the c b i issue really is a red herring judge the question is whether mr taylor refused to follow an instruction by mr mccullough admitted that he had no idea what to do he had never ordered a blood test i don't believe i think the facts are clear that he did not even refer to the collective bargaining agreement act of barring agreements as an order must be in writing and the writing here said alcohol didn't  deposition that he did not i think it's a funny conception of kindness to fire someone and that's what he's counseled have his court believe mr huge admitted i didn't have to fire he could have chosen to suspend him steady p pushes him to take a last chance agreement that said you could be fired at any time if you screw up that's what he wanted mr taylor said he could have suspended and it was within his choice he didn't do so he admitted no one wanted to fight i didn't have to kindness that's part of an of a long standing plan to eradicate african americans from this fire department and they did and there is at the facts that i've shown before show that there was a pre insubordination hughes mccullough didn't fire the fact that mccullough is black is absolutely no bearing on this issue mccullough didn't fire him no one was calling for his discharge hughes didn't bother to take a look at these facts did he talk to anyone who was involved and didn't look at taylor's allegations of racism you know what i knew you were guilty i'm a fiery that tha