you and made it please the court i'm david redden on behalf of the appellant jonathan scarborough this appeal is from an order granting summary judgment against mister scarborough for his claim for a tax allegation under the minnesota whistleblower act or district court failed to acknowledge certain facts in the record now to set the stage mister scarborough and mister pennington were discussing how well mister johnston had tried to pass off expensive picture frames as a business expense mister scarborough commented that mister johnston likes things nice and fancy and he pointed out that he could probably cut costs on conference rooms but he'd like to have his conferences at a fancy law firm now the district court said that that is not a report of unlawful conduct johnston had been submitting and receiving reimbursement of supposed charges for the use of those conference rooms and that he would look into whether they were in fact free and that is the report suspected by fraud of the district court amid this detail and binding that there was no protected conduct on july th two thousand and fourteen which is inconsistent with the summary judge standard the district court also run easily rejected mister scarborough's direct evidence of retaliatory intent in connection with the august four two thousand and fourteen written warning that was issued now the m w a say mister read and before you go on to the august issue what difference does it make whether the st incident was protected conduct if the court agreed that there were two other acts of protected conduct that took place before any adverse action well thank you for the question just call it  that it makes a difference because within an hour of that conversation mister pennington contacted ministration at federated and asked for a coffee mister scarborough's receipt for a company trip to the disney wrist resort and he said in his deposition that he just wanted to ensure that you know there were no personal charges but the testimony from multiple witnesses from federated have confirmed that on occasion on such trips personal charges are wind up on the company credit card and that nothing is wrong so long as they're repaid and so it's our contention that within an hour of receiving this report of wrongdoing by m the written warning is obviously discipline and also it would say that most employees would find written warnings to be a threat and then this record ignored the warning that the wording identifies the investigation into mister johnston's fraudulent activities a connection the district court ignored substantial evidence of retaliatory animus other than timing st with regard to mister pennington we have the evidence that mister pennington's prior knowledge of mister johnston's on lawful conduct he knew the conference rooms were free he approved mister johnston's expenses for those same conduct friends rooms including for at least two conferences that he attended the judge also ignored that mister pennington lied about mister johnston scheme started on july of two thousand and twelve which he claimed was the time that scarborough started as mister johns manager but that's irrefutably false it started before july twenty twentieth's and it started when mister pennington was mister johnston's manager with others venerated and that he had been talking to mister johnston supervisor to his director reports in this text message he says this is unbelievable and claims that he predicted it in a prior conversation with mister kerr and then importantly he says we would not have repaid the personal expenses on the company credit card were it not for the issues of mister johnston's expenses but there is zero evidence to support that speculation finally on deposition that he was upset about that meeting because mister scarborough had an explanation for each of these issues that mister curry raised now why would mister ker be upset about that well the obvious inference here is that he was hoping but failed to catch mister scarborough in this condo now so there's substantial evidence of retaliatory animus besides just timing and the judge also ignores substantial evidence of pretext regarding the written warning the district knowingly enable mister johnston's fried for upwards of two years even though according to mister pennington the two did not get along but then suddenly reported two years in and implicating himself in the process that alone makes it a fact issue for the jury because the proposition is just absurd and then there's mister pennington claiming that he had told mister scarborough multiple times in the past that the conference rooms were free that's obviously suspect in light of the evidence of disclosing his little scheme and so finally mister weaver a close inspection of his deposition testimony did not tell mister petting to mister ker anything that would support mister scarborough having prior decision a drink could easily find that this was not a reasonably informed considered decision and there was no honest belief it is that is an issue for the jury now the judge also cited what it called intervening event including those personal charges on the company credit card screw referral credits not using corporate travel and then held that these intervening events negated any connection but in doing so the judge ignored uncontroverted evidence from federated seven witnesses including mr kerr and mister penton mister scarborough didn't do anything wrong in connection with any of these things the things that he was doing were not wrong there was no policy and other people did it they weren't punished that makes it evidence of pre for reporting it seems no follow up investigation was done and in fact mister kerr testified in his deposition that he didn't know whether the accusation was true and that he didn't judge the accuracy of the allegations so he doesn't have a conclusion there can't be an honest belief and finally regarding mister scaurus terminations the district court talked about what mister kerr called the straw that broke the camel's back mister scarborough's conversation with a coworker about the possibility that a regional marketing manager might be removed from their position soon now setting aside any arguments about whether mister scarborough really did anything wrong here mister kerr his own testimony establishes that this conversation vision was with a friend was not sufficient alone to warrant terminations and mister curses all these other property reasons reasons that a jury could find pretextual also inform that decision to terminate and i would like to point out if i could the standard the controlling standard for cause ation for n w a claims that standard is articulated  s savings bank f s b which is cited on page thirty seven dollars of our brief under this because asian standard there is no same decision defense and employee is not required to show that every asserted reason for the adverse action was a pretext and the employees not required to prove  for cause ation instead the employee need only have evidence for which is jury could find that the decision was motivated at least in part by the illegitimate reason and this causation standard is important here because there is substantial evidence from which you jury can infer retaliatory that that's that's fine the term a nation was never the less motivated in part by his protective conda and we accordingly request the court reversed dismissal on summary judgment of remand for trial now as are the short remaining time for rebuttal thank you very well thank you for your argument mister stern mo we'll hear from you do you hear me now then please the court counsel even if you assume gretna through scarboro statements are reports all three of them it was his multiple instances of intervening public engagement in that misconduct and there's no evidence of otherwise all you have to do is look at the final precipitating event the people who will moment in this case which was secretly record believes that the employee violated company rules then prove that the employee never violated company rules and is not shown the employer's explanation was false that proof shows only the employer's believe was mistake prove the employer's explanation was false the employee must show that the employer did not truly believe the employee violated company rules and the court goes on to say there for a while a plane may establish pretext unfair this is true regardless of whether the employees explanation is based on st hand knowledge or rd party reports so it's it's our view mirvan case and the ozark health case are simply determined  missouri lawsuit also shows why he was terminated so i think that neutralizes any claim of discriminatory animists might occur was the decision maker eat  and then he gets demoted for acting unprofessional ossified expenses pocketing cruise you've heard some credit card by spreading false rumors and engaging in other conduct that calls into question his integrity and this discoverer her after he sent the email and this conspiracy theory involving pennington completely ignores the pennington wasn't his supervisor at the time he got fired and incan wasn't consult  binding president in the murder case in the ozark health case we believe that judge frank's summary judgment should be affirmed in this why do you think it's not a report well because he's just talking about mister johnson likes things nice in fancy and in fact it reasonable inferences and those are details in our rebuttal that we submitted to the court in a couple examples one is claiming that these intervening events were misconduct for example that this claim that he cheated on his expenses there is substantial as a basis for any of his decisions both in counsel talked about mister scarborough's conversations with people other than mister curry mister penington they were parties to those conversations that wasn't a basis for their decisions that be some evidence to support or that that was a reasonably considered as supported decision and it is not for the reasons that we've pointed out and finally i'd like to talk about mister pennington mister penton was heavily involved in the decision to demote mister scarborough which is clearly an adverse action and was also that really involved in the decision to issue the writ a written warning which is an adverse action under the minnesota was a lower act and mister kerr specifically said that it  determination did not arise but only because of you know this conversation with a friend but it was the straw that broke the camel's back which ties and all those other things and so for that amount of time unless the court as many questions appreciate the opportunity very well thank you both counsel for your arguments the case is submitted and the court will file in the union in due course