twelve the question this case poses is whether a reasonable jury could conclude that her gender cause determination the answer is yes there are three separate categories of evidence that we think allow ms milligan to a trial let  transfer and and that was not violated policy so we did discovery and we found out that there were other wire transfers because  shah so he was involved in a five hundred thousand dollar wire transfer and the facts are indistinguishable in any material way with the milliken wire transfer so that that's what you said the brokerage says that they are very different our purposes a question then becomes what evidence do you have that they are the the first is they say the the wire transfer itself violated the rules on discretionary trading and so we look at that and we say well let's look at the facts and so they said at the  and if the what they said is that ms milligan received an e mail from the husband well that isn't what happened she got an e mail from the client mary jo the husband was on the e mail as well and she had dealt with the  with mary jo the client through the very same e mail address throughout her entire tenure at morgan stanley so when they might question may not have been clear much of your present tension is essentially th t that the brokerage is making a mistake and that a well run brokerage would not have distinguished these situations from the ones you named as comparatives but the court keeps saying we don't use the employment discrimination laws to prevent employers from making mistakes and once the employer offers a reason the question is whether that reason is a pretext for discrimination which boils down to the question whether it's law whether they are misrepresenting their own thinking and so the question i'm trying to get you to address is what reasons do we have what reasons do you have to contend that they are misrepresenting that evans is lying about his own thought processes of three one is that they said that millikan process to why a transfer request by an authorized third party purporting to hack be acting on behalf of the client that's not what happened the e mail came from the client so that's a false statement because everything boils down to we think they're making a mistake and therefore they're lying you know they were they they said something affirmatively untrue they said that she took the e mail request from the husband she didn't e mail came from the white or mary joe that's a false statement we've got a lot of cases it is not a false statement to say x if you believe it to be true right personnel management that's why i'm asking you if you have any way of distinguishing errors from wise in this case you go to the first statement that you took the e mail request from the husband is is patiently false if false statement as they said that she took the e mail request from the husband and that's not what happened the e mails themselves reflect that is what happened so i think we've that's a lie and they said she violated a policy on discretionary trading she did it and if she did vipul sh exact same thing then they said that she violated a different policy that they came up with during the case and that is the by the policy on on wire transfers that they say is reflected in the wire fraud fact sheet doesn't say that it doesn't say that you have to talk to the client that says you have to have an out of out of band confirmation and that's what she did so i believe your honor those are three separate things that they said that are demonst they they wanted to retreat to disciplinary records that doesn't help either because people shop had a much more serious disciplinary history than milliken did so that the that's the disparate treatment with respect to shock and there are others so if they even if they had shown that she violated the rules on discretionary trading and don't we don't think she did there are at least three other comparative or three other male financial advisors who were found to have violated discretionary trading rules and were not disciplined at all if you talk about and you know that mr evans admitted there is no if three strikes rule there is no there are no guidelines on on how severe and infraction has to be before somebody is just quinn there are no rules on how many will cause somebody to be disciplined but there were there's a laundry list in the brief of other five male financial because he was also involved in a wire transfer that turned out to be fraudulent the wire transfer was distinguishable there he said just do it after receiving a new mail but he had already been on a heightened supervision long before this ever happened where he had far more than three disciplinary events on his record and he was not terminated by mr evans so apart from the disparate treatment and i think that that by itself is sufficient to allow us to have a trial but made a decision but during the six weeks in between when the wire transfer came to light and when the decision was announced ms milligan evans was telling milligan no it's not my decision it's up to the lawyers of the violation of discretionary trading rules and then they changed their story want to rip when it became clear that she didn't violate discretionary trading rules and then they said it was the white it was a wire fraud faction they swore in their answers dinner rocket that other than lauderdale nobody else who didn't have been involved in a fraudulent wire transfer in the in the chicago complex that was false we learned that in the shah information change white so they're shifting stories themselves are also sufficient to entitle us to a jury trial  and we mean we refer to it or the case law refers to it as cask law theory i think it's more appropriate just to talk about this in terms of proximate cause but mr mitchell had expressed his biases he wasn't shy about them he was a witnesses who say that he made those statements to them after milligan was terminated and he denied those of course and then we have the six week period in which there was no decision on on what discipline she would receive a fanny as a result of this wire transfer and in the interim mitchell testified i was talking to mr adams and they had a long talk to mr robinson mr moody on about bringing other financial analyst into this when mr bronson made a comment about her about the she was about to have a family and she is going to have kids and and mrs milligan made it clear after that meeting she was not going to partner with david bruns up five days later she was fired the timing is suspicious as well six weeks that mr evans testified i learned everything i knew about her employment history in this wire transfer within days when it happened it took him six weeks to terminate or five days after she announced she wouldn't partner with dave  each of those facts the shifting stories in the lies are sufficient to entitle us to a jury trial put them all together and there should be no doubt that they were entitled to a jury trial and we had the court also struck center or teased in addition to the evidence all of the evidence being something the court has to look at the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting method still applies and flying that she's a member of judge a class she was terminated other people were treated differently  several instances which we outlined in the brief and all of those factors weigh in favor of a jury trial on the harassment claim mr milligan was u subjected two commons offensive comments throughout her entire tenure just recorded two reasons i think for granting summary judgment one is that it wasn't sufficiently hellish within the three hundred days of  because there were different people who committed it and the supreme court in this court has instructed that that isn't the focus the focus is on is on the conduct and not on who committed so i'll reserve a few minutes for  that violated firm policy she does not deny that she took instruction from an unauthorized person and in doing so violated both from policy and in the fin general rules and that's and her deposition at page one ten through eleven one twenty t twenty one and one twenty four she instead here argues though that gender was a factor in her term a nation as the district court recognized though milligan has not presented evidence that male a financial advisors were treated differently or more fairly than she was turning to the compare it or he's not a comparative he had no prior disciplinary history what he did have was customer complaints if you look at the c r d reports in the record you'll see that customer complaints  different category he was also the victim of a very skilled fraudster that fraudster in that case not only had the a copy of the passport had a missile security number of the person and lauderdale also processed a project transfer request like milligan he did so based on an e mail request purporting to come from the client without attempting to reach the client to confirm my authorization now here milligan received a call from the fraudster whom she believed to be the husband of the client and again the husband was not oh did not have written authorization on this account so he is not an authorized party or client and keep like milligan lauderdale did have discipline motive and discipline twice prior two thousand and two thousand and nine and after processing the project transfer like milligan was terminated not only was milligan treated the same as finding  male financial advisors but there was no evidence presented that the decision maker here the person is mark evans and mark evans confirms that he's the decision maker at fifty four dash eight page twenty two that he terminated milligan based on a discriminatory gender that the page twenty two hundred twenty two and also stated that nor did anyone else in management a supervisor position legal or human resources and that's that page two twenty three  looking at the finra acceptance waiver and consent the milliken did enter into she consented to a finding by finra that she affected trades in a client's account and the instructions of the client's husband without the proper authorization and without receiving prior approval i would just to briefly touch on the part of the policies that she violated just so the court has them to be clear the pilot policies are seven point five eight one which is third party agent trade authority and as i explained to the court the husband was not  not have authority to do so eight eight point seven two on authorize discretion and then on the wire fraud actually which is in the record at fifty four dash one exhibit fourteen and both evans in his deposition and milligan in her own deposition stated that morgan stanley policies on wire transfers require that the financial advisor needed verbal confirmation on a wire transfer and she also conceded in her deposition that she did not receive verbal confirmation from the actual although we also state as in our brief that milligan has been unable to show any evidence of cat that would allow for a cat's paw theory to take place here she need to show the suppose that intent was communicated evans there is no actual evidence or as a district court communicated and acted upon the court rejected such speculation in that dark terminations consistent with the law as to milligan's hostile work environment claim the court found and was very specific in its findings that majority of the co claims or allegations were time art there was no linkage because the discreet issues of harassment were neither a single chain of conduct themselves are linked in any way the court rules in the  court said that for time barred x to be properly considered the action must be connected in time and circumstance and we don't have that type of connection here jones on the issue of discretionary authority have asked the court to please take a careful look in the record at point us exhibit sixty eight it's a document fifty four twenty this is the relevant portions of the account that is at issue in this case and if you look at that it is clear that the e mail request came from mary jo she's a signatory on the account she's the one who said kerry please wire transfer of this money she wasn't exercising authority based upon the husband she was exercising authority based upon the request from the wife so she didn't violate the rules they say she violated and they didn't talk truthfully when they said that she took the directions from the hospital she took them from the wife of equal shock of sudden customer complaints two of