douglas does not apply to her disability based discrimination claim because this claim is a direct evidence discrimination claim it does not it is not turning it into the day you read just have to decide whether there was a trial issue in fact supreme court has told us don't do don't get too wrapped up around these proofs schemes on appear because they intended for the orderly presentation o  service and for that i think everyone can certainly respect her contributions to the problem was do to accommodate on which you prove i will be eligible for attorney fees on that but the wrongful discharge clane  seem to have little to do with the disability and a great deal to do with problems in inter as to the approach of instruction for the heart of hearing she was committed to the american sign language approach which may be all well and were the primary reason that also be s k for terminations you cannot separate interpersonal issues you cannot separate smith's ability to interact with her colleagues from the fact she is deaf she cannot she cannot speak unless she has an interpreter and in the absence of an interpreter which has already been established was discriminatory in the absence of absence of an interpreter this is what the school required her to do to try to be a team player she had to walk around with a little white board writing notes to people she would have text message conversations face to face with something well the teachers and administrators around her were talking and she would have no idea what they were saying i think the issue of call it comes i'm not sure i understand well what you think is the direct evidence of discrimination well it's just two parts first the school failed to accommodate her disability by failing to provide a daily knowledge is the case or provide you lesson plans or teaching l a binders or taking home student data which apparently violated state regulations well you're  well whether are going to whether or not one violates a state requirement and whether or not it's a problem it is certainly discipline is it not are agree that violating a state requirement would be disciplined morally but the question here is whether she would would have been terminated whether they were taken with her job in the binders to complete which was abolished the discrimination that you rely on does not seem to failure to accommodate does not in any way seem to have played a role our smith than the law requires all the she has to actually she she could i'm not sure that's credit but there's a fairly long list of these kinds of  failures skipping meetings for which an interpreter had been scheduled without notifying anyone calling in consecutively for sickleave when she denied leave to go to a car conference when she acknowledges that she went to the conference there's a fair amount of insubordination in this record that one would think could be viewed cumulatively documents that led to her the school's decision not to renew her contract both emphasized her failure to interact effectively with her colleagues but a big part of that their comeback was the enables the school system to follow the progress of a hearing impaired student and and let you know if the students are making progress and it's absolutely necessary for funding of the school system so and funding of disability programs so the things that she did many of the things you failed to do were things that were intended to help and assist hearing impaired students and the record keeping is essential because it it lets parents and school administrators and others know what the actual progress educational progress for particular student is being made so you're in a position of saying whoa she was drama now for failing to do things that were actually assisting the disabled population at the school and helping them to get the educational opportunity that everyone wants and to hell that these v l a binders that she she completed him to to the extent that her students had completed the standards that she had of quarter she did the record keeping but they weren't completed in time in the sense that she was not able to document that they completed standards that they were unable to attain but to come back to the point of causation here on her disability based discrimination claim this could this court has held that get back to what judge dunn consented it was an accumulation of causes here many or most of which seem completely unrelated to disability well i think that's a factual issue for the jury i think that what's not unless is this is somehow put put in into disrepute well with respect to the i e piece that is a disputed fact that they were late she test she agreed that one i e one i e was late it was late for a reason and that should not have led to her being terminated because it was because of appearance she testified that all of her lesson plans were completed and there we had i think it was two witnesses that corroborated that but again i want to emphasize the but for causation standard here is not a sole causation standard so i don't think anyone's contending that it isn't just the had just begins to to to pile up to the point that the genuineness issues in roof fifty plaintiffs did not do as judge to cheers pointed out in his memorandum opinion it is important to note she did not come forward with any evidence to dispute number one that she was late with her i e p plans all she said at that stage was it wasn't my fault but there was on contested evidence that in the event a parent will not sign the i e p plan then what you have to do is go with the same plan but you have to come to the table and have a plan in effect this is not just a state requirement this is a federal requirement because these are five zero four plans and school over job on which she filled day zero were all intended to help disabled population make their contributions to the well being of the communities around hmong yes and these are highly structured plans involve multiple individuals so that she did not refute that the summary judgment stage she has a different story now but that's not what's before the court she specifically has alleged we terminated her because of her disability we retaliated against her because of her disability but not only did not refute the ip she never refuted in fact the her own documentation unequivocally supported she did not do the requisite documentation for the v g l a binders this was a new thing in place that year  to document the progress of children who could not take the s o l's so what you have to do is just keep examples of their work that's what the evidence was unrefuted you have to keep examples of their work that show progress because if there's no progress then you're not meeting the measurable goals and she didn't keep the documentation she said i could in her own e mails i'm not going to be able to get these done on time it's not my fault the children can't do l's the children shouldn't be measured against these standards that was her dispute not that she couldn't get the information because she didn't have an interpreter in fact judge to cheers points out most of the time the issue she was having with people including interpersonal relationships she had interpreters she had interpreters she had interpreters in her meetings with the principal she had interpreters in her  interpreters when she was dealing with these colleagues and two instances she didn't even need an interpreter one of the colleagues was deaf eileen mccartan was deaf herself show argue well she had coakley or implants she's not truly was this philosophical difference of opinion on how to teach deaf children under the underpinning of everything that led she's the architect of her own disaster because her excuse for the v g l a binders was not that i didn't have an accommodation it's never been that it was that i don't agree with how the state and the federal government are telling us we have to accommodate hard of hearing and deaf students total communication i'm sorry that is sitting that's the decision maker even the principal didn't have the discretion to ignore the total communications  direction that they were going in that's because federal law and state mandate the least restrictive environment and the least restrictive environment is one that you have to take the families consideration into how communi some of these children could speak partial hearing but and that her philosophical difference led to they the inability to meet federal and state timelines which have the federal government found out have the parents gone and complained there are huge sanctions for this and that's the reason for the terminations and the reason for that that she was not retaliated against in any way she took the binders hom she did not dispute that at the summary judgment stage she never did she violated the law and took them home and the reason is the reason they don't want you to take them home is they don't want you to manufacture the stuff you didn't have all the way through the school year that you were supposed to have they don't want you to make up a report that's against the law too and how can the school system maintain the integrity of the data the integrity of the progress reports and to allow the children to progress this is all focused on managing children's with disabilities so they can progress have measurable goals she failed across the board in that even when she had the accommodations she wanted interpreters and the phone had nothing to do with any of the reasons she was terminated terminated these were documented even before brenda yoakum speech came the principal the prior principal documented failure to get along with colleagues documented the fact that she had interpersonal relationships and ms smith and her response to that never said anything there's a written response in the record she said it's not my fault the other teacher was condescending so everything is not my fault so what they really are asking you all to do is sit in the place  satisfactory and her contract would not be renewed list issues with planing in assessment or structure the second thing it list is professionalism and communication with colleagues and this is this is what else c p s said they said psmith does not consistently exhibit a cooperative approach in the performance of professional duties interactions with colleagues she has failed to develop a positive report with colleagues this one reason to to why they terminated her and we can it is not the place of a court in a prejudge pretrial motion to decide hey the fact that she didn't have an interpreter that had nothing to do with why she was terminated well she said i'm sorry that she said she was reprimanded for sending a way of death teaching assistant by writing on the blackboard she's deaf she cannot help me that's not you know that's not that's documented she texted the principal that she wasn't comfortable having an aural deaf person in her classroom because it was against deaf culture j six thirty one there are it's not it doesn't relate to the failure to accommodate these are firm statements by her that demonstrate a lack of willingness to engage with the administration and with her colleagues we don't or she didn't it's just she saying she's not comfortable dealing with someone who is oral into that that's her well again we there's nothing  and some of those are documented and some of those are at her own feet and at least some of them have nothing to do with having an interpreter that was my only excludes that well for example that you just you just gave it as an example the incident where she wrote on the board this this teacher the substitute teacher can't help me she death the issue there was what she needed was an interpreter to help her communicate with someone in the school sent her someone who is deaf and sued therefore could not interpret for her so that was i think that's why she wrote the act and we go and go into detail in our brief other examples where she was reprimanded for reasons that just had to do with misunderstandings like she was reprimanded for not participating well enough in a meeting when  of the meeting had left and she couldn't she couldn't participate in the it's placing too high of a burden on on smith to say hey you have to have been a perfect employee to be able to bring a wrongful discharge claim an emergency disability act they didn't accommodate her disability that's clear discrimination under this act and then they provided a reason for her terminations that is directly related to the communication access she court the question for the jury here is if she had an accommodation she had an interpreter would she have been fired maybe she still would have maybe sure that paperwork issues but that's not the question is whether all of the issues that could come up with would have been was all the question is if she had had an interpreter and there had been a discrimination would she have been fired and i think a reasonable jury could could look at this situation say no she would have been fired they'd have worked were there on this paperwork stuff they'd have had more patience with where they do that we've got the discrimination and i think it's the job of a jury to drawl it's the right of a jury to look at all the evidence and