wrote a memo memo is outlined in the record and it's in our appendix pages forty through forty two where there was a long trial facts are very very sequestered in fact the recitation of facts from the board i don't really take any objection it's the application of those facts to the law and the way they analyze promoting his interests at the cost of the potential of the team but if we're going to go down that route as a matter of public policy we're going to end up this rape the rights that employees have to file says employees have a right to file a grievance and in fact they do every day go to the public sector private sector and more often than not those grievances have the potential of impacting someone else impacting one of their coworkers somebody feels as though they were promoted over somebody else or grievances fucked up but that grievance comes out the other way it's going to impact somebody else that's exactly what happened here close to file this grievance board says he has a right to  you had trust issues with charging perjury because of the grievances he fact so the trust issue is one of the fact that he fired grievances hayes knew what the trust issue was because outlined in the bill and then so is this is this is and there was there are issues that came up throughout the proceedings about other reasons why there was a lack of trust none of those are referenced in the boards of hit the boards opinion on this is pure miller memo made clear that certain members of the teary have trust issues with terje party because of the grievances he filed so the trust issue still directly from the previous file the finding of the board is that's the basis what they don't like it so well listen they don't trust him trust is important we're going to remove him because they don't trust well i understand your point about what for but some of these if you reach a point where one of you reach a point where and i think somebody even maybe and i could be confuse us to another record about the straw that broke the camel's back is there some reference to that on the and so these are after the fact justification you can go through the board's decision and again what the court is reviewing is what the board fucked the board isn't finding that what they were all these problems and this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back that's that's not there but they've been up there for quite some time i mean you know travis was there was a summary judgment opinion issued against him by judge miers off of central district that said that he engaged in that it wasn't with the t r u it was hitting motivation ok and what we have here is the grievances are the motivation to remove but for those grievances posters not there's no there's no dispute about that the have your client is passed over for promotions within the t r u for another individual d on the on the t r u and he files a grievance because he knows of this other individual engaged and has engaged in illegal  filed no they cannot do anything along the lines of what they did here which is having him removed from the t r u because it coincided with the filing of rubens is that it is in terms of your pos said it was a lawful to surveil people off duty something along those lines and the reason for the removal is to be because there was a violation of some independent will that under those circumstances i would i would agree that there would be a reason why the employer could take action later or your scenario where it's just a grievance he has looked d at other people if he's not violating a workplace rule by doing that he has a right to file his justify removing them from this elite unit i mean you you said reported to rule i mean you know this is a side issue obviously this is what happened but why do you need a rule for if one of these guys is surveilling need to see whether or not i work in the office at night it's going to be pretty hard for me to continue to work well they complain about it to the presiding judge to really complain about  they please the court i am assistant attorney general eric goes man i represent the illinois labor relations section ten day one of the public labor relations act it's about managing the relationship between employers and employees and it prohibits employers from taking adverse action that is intended to coerce or strain or interfere with violent grievances the focus is on the motive of the employer the employer here while the supervisor who found was apparently related to file a grievance is and here's responsible for looking for the reason for that lack of trust and then realizing that this is a form problem other instances that happened informed get pain cumulation actions over a period of time led to this deterioration trust it's not as simple as he filed a grievance that the team members didn't like it and then he was was not motivated to recommend or because coast to file grievances his memo recommending removal that went to capture williams didn't say anything about releases and that then went to a disputed evidence of cases mode is just not enough to overturn a factual determination that on this record and what coaster is relying on is it is an inference that a look at the chain of said in the memo was the team members don't trust coach or i can't have a person on the team the guys don't trust that hurts operational safety in fact it s and so i recommend to be removed from the team there there facts and even if even if there were a strong inference or if it's whether it's against the manifest weight the evidence and the weight of the evidence is one sided when it actual evidence and then also on the arguments put forth by the supposed i also want to address quickly the matter of public policy that costers concerned about which is that this sets some had a bad precedent it doesn't set any precedent because this is a factual determination each one of these administrative cases are decided on the facts and then those facts come out because if i had on those red lights i would have been there and they would be in the courthouse it's not me but forecasts the test is whether or not it's a factual matter the board's determination that mean they respond to the most serious situations of terrorist attacks hostage situations schools that protect presidents the reason we submitted all that testimony was because  it fully supported what hayes determined in his memo he didn't say anything about these these grievances he talked only about trust and you st most members of the t r in a single one of them mention the grievances they're not concerned about their grievances they're concerned about their backs their concern about the safety of the community they're concerned about the of ability of this unit to function and the evidence in this case is overwhelming that this occurred over a period of time and so about all kinds of things you mentioned the gun in the up and so that's a serious thing it was a make a forty seven dollars it was in an up and a confidential informant heading told them about this before the ra afterwords paces with he's livid because my gosh you're not supposed to do that that seriously undermines the safety of this confidential informant all kinds of terrible things c happen what happens after the meeting one officer fesses up and says hey i did have to remain silent now those things that in the four request you mention were all discussed during that meeting trump that that the temple relationship is the only thing the support here simply doesn't take into account the rapper's case or the birth of her and the burden of proof is on officer cost or her culture choose to prove that that was a substantial motivating factor i just think there's overwhelming evidence that it was not  those memos make that perfectly clear that's not speculation on my part that's not jumping to conclusions that's what it is and the idea that the board he said well there's a lack of trust amongst the team and so therefore we can remove him that becomes a very very dangerous precedent to set let's say this were the case where somebody was an islamic member of the team and all of a sudden there's a there's a there's a terrorist action purpose and somebody is removed because there are people on the team who don't trust that they don't trust that somebody who is a muslim background could have their back with us here today that case is open and shut you can it's the same exact thing here they didn't trust him all these other because he's finding graves because of the nature of the grievances themselves we don't trust him because he is filing these presents that's what he says talk he says ok i'm going to ask for him to groove because he's not trusted the whole reason for the lack of