title seven he's also relying upon the deal why regulations are in relationship to the requirements of the investigation of the fraud aspect of the case those are the primary statutes discrimination and sexual conduct i think that even if the main heart of this case is that he was a whistleblower that felt that he was treating inappropriately in regards to several matters dispute resolutions and throughout the entire period of time that he started making complaints he related all of those instances in the looks or the reach allegation yesterday and what evidence is there that the employer knew about his complaints to these people you say were government employees oh well i think in particular in relationship to their they had knowledge of the fact that he had contact with the people at the department of insurance and in relationship to ed faith and i see i be and you can discern that from the fact that true in his original dispute resolution complaint indicates that there's violations of that particular statute dispute resolution thing they knew that he was going to these conferences like the n i c u conference and i believe there was another conference that he was scheduled to go to that he had once again ma go to where he's going to meet with they're going to discuss it with the frog investigators and the third and the like so they have knowledge that he's having contact with people they're preventing him from having contact with them and additional continually if you look at every single one of the ones that he makes he's turning on there's these violations that you're not doing things correctly and yet he's having contact and they know that he has contact on an ongoing basis with these individuals from the department it's reasonable for them to suspect that he has gone to the department i don't necessarily think that that's totally a determining factor of whether or not they knew or not because if you look at the chairman cause of action which is the one for terminations and violation of public both are aspects of making complaints of whistleblowing well in regards to illegal activities and i think the distinction you know it's easier to find it under the  that they raise is in that case the supervisor of the individual mr hardee age went to this human resources person and told him i don't want you to do anything and the court said well because he said i don't want you to do anything i don't want you to as early as april of one nine hundred ninety nine you can feel complacent human resources people he says the dispute resolution in june of ninety ninety nine after each one of the checkpoints he's making more complaints to them indicating in fact the very last reporting the illegal acts and making claims of disability of reporting and they knew about that because what's clear about that factor they knew about him saying that there were these complaints of retaliation was that they inform or they looked at that because of because he was constructively terminated and had and have resigned and that's and that's the eleven thirty four through eleven thirty five there's e mails that show that in those circumstances they had knowledge that he had was making these compliance and it what it comes down to is true because of all the things that were happening to him and because of his medical condition the depression that he was suffering which they knew  investigate fraud cases to try to keep down the cost to the public so unlike a situation like for example where there's somebody who's whistle blowing about a company's embezzling papers and the amount of money that the rate payers have to pay out because you're trying to uncover fraud police departments do not have the resources to go out on insurance fraud cases and nail all the people that are are committing insurance fraud so the legislature relies upon the insurance companies to do that through the legislation which is which would right in our in our the regulations codes which gives the responsibility going after the hell's angels you're going to get some more complaints and the one thing that you can look at that mr true points out in his documentation that shows his performance is beyond that of anybody else is if you look at how he in his declaration he describes all the inadequacies that were done in the in the file review by mr cannady in regards to the hells angels situation and then you have here is the to individuals that does what the legislature has told them to do and go out and get dry and he's being persecuted because of the fact that he's not doing the number of skiing and here they reward people who just passed files through and they get adjusters for the year when they do inadequate performance here in the public is that there is a disservice to the public that is being done by all states and that is what mr through complained about and that is and that is what he  said i want you to send me an e mail and start putting it on the diary system to indicate if you have any questions or relationship to the manner in which for a request to do investigations in light the deal i requirements are that it has to be on the diary system so that there's a record that shows that a thorough investigation is being taken place this was something that mr trew objected to and said well if you want me to do that then i need that direction right and when he requested for it to be in writing which establishes it would establish that it's a direct order in violation of the department of church regulations she began to yell and that's one of the things escalate started to come out of control and there were witnesses there like tina's who also observed you know there was this attitude towards mr through in that room where you know i asking about the wrong  claim that true did something wrong basically is the just of the e mail and this is for your records because you now supervise true whereas that wasn't actually the case what had occurred was management had not timely follow through in relationship to the guidelines of making reports to the department of insurance who was truthful of all the thing that occurred but they attributed to true then the second thing that occurs sorry lost my train of thought that's presented by this case in particular is whether or not an employer truly has any corroborative whatsoever to manage and coach its employees with first respect to their performance or and employees such as mr threw who disagrees with his managers evaluation of his performance quit and soon can he say you waited me a needs expectation that i think i should have gotten a gold star and because of that i have causes of action against you for discrimination for retaliation for constructive wrongful discharge because that's what this case is all about the evidence really boils down to th mr trew had for managers over the last four years of his employment the first one was to share installing the woman who he accuses of discriminating against and retaliating against him during the first year to two years that they work together in this all of them got along fine he had no problems with her he thought she was maybe a little bit hard in terms of her about a ration of his performance but otherwise they had no conflicts whatsoever peers in this fraud investigative unit so it's not a matter of allstate expecting people on its fraud investigation unit to have zero complaints from customers of course there were any complaints but allstate does courts in this country are going to be asked to resolve whether or not an employee was correctly evaluated this needs expectations or should have been evaluated as exceeds expectations then we are truly on the road to the courts becoming  super person on review boards that many many courts have said we don't want to be and that's where mr trues original complaint comes in he also complains at the same time that he believes that allstate is not adequately came back he met with his allstate managers in the meantime he that he had filed another complaint about mr sullivan his treatment of him during that april meeting he met with mr bolton's manager and with human resources he did not request that he be assigned a different supervisor that's in the record although he criticizes allstate for not assigning a different supervisor he did not request that he in the sullivan work together for another three or four months and then he was assigned assigned yet and in that checkpoint she rated him as needs improvement overall now the check point however is not a final performance review under the allstate system the check point is an infirmary review that may inform the final review but is not anything that ever affects the employee's compensation his eligibility for promotion or transfer or any of the other material terms and conditions of his employment so at the end of to bring his rating up to a needs expectations now these are what was being commanded if you will of mr crewe was the s to them there was a customer service course which in his check point reviews during that prior year one thousand ninety nine mr to have been asked to take he hadn't taken it either that or the record of his having taken it had been lost i think there was some debate about that in the record and so he was asked to take that course i believe there were two other courses which all state requires adjustors take that he was asked to take he was asked to bring his customer complaints in line with those of the other adjusters in the unit and he was also asked i believe to bring his matrix compliance in line with your standards matrix compliance with the adjusters that allstate are asked to follow a checklist which is called the matrix in performing fraud investigations and part of the reason why the need for x was developed is because in doing those investigations allstate needs to be sure that not only is it complying with deal i with respect to investigation of fraud but it's being fair to its customers and extend acting those investigations in an appropriate way that doesn't expose the company to claims for bad faith insurance denials or inappropriate conduct in the investigations so you was being fair just to bring himself up to approximately ninety percent compliance with the matrix which was the unit standard mr truth did those things and in april of two thousand he was given a performance rating that rated him needs improvements or excuse me nice expectations mr trew again was offended by the fact that he was rated a needs expectations he thought he should have been rated and exceeds expectations he thought he should have gone from a check point indicating that he needed improvement to a final review for the year indicating that he extended expectations so he again going to respond there was a deadline to respond in order for it to be part of his performance review record and she wanted him not to miss that deadline so that was what prompted the first i think incident that mr trew indicated caused him to feel that he was being constructively discharged in the summer of two thousand now i don't think that we can find any cases even in  retaliation contexts where the courts have rather expansively interpreted adverse action where this type of performance record and record of evaluation of the  is considered to be sufficient to sustain positive action against the employer for discrimination or for retaliation and i submit to this court that the district court's very well reasoned and very scholarly opinion below complain about throw out investigations to governmental people well if you want to call generalized griping over dinner at a trade conference complaining yes he did have a conversation apparently with a deal i investigator there's evidence of that record a fellow with whom he had worked on a number of cases including the motor tech fraud scam by the name of earl door now mr doors a job at the department of insurance was not to investigate insurance companies reliance with the oil regulations you disagree that these were governmental people anyway don't you or mr gore is and is an employee of the department of insurance mr gore according to mr tr to clayton construct that would have been october of one nine hundred ninety nine the trade conference about which mr true insurance televen had a debate whether or not he was going to attend which is another reason and that mr truly that he should not go to the trade conference if president was altered his attendance that he was going to have to hire three investigators to manage his files in the interim and that is that was the context of the debate not i don't want you to go because who knows what you're going to say to the dui people who will be there but you shouldn't go if you can't get your work done now with respect to the complaints that's the only evidence in the record and it's th none whatsoever in fact the evidence in the record your honour's that each and every one of mr through supervisors who was deposed testify flat out that they had no want knowledge whatsoever that mr truly had need complaints t and during that period there was one at least alleged shouting match with mr sullivan as a result of which mr research concludes that she treated men differently than she treated women now five years before mr trew experienced any problems with sharon sullivan it's at least three years before mr true worked for the first time sharon sullivan a working relationship which he recently have the state of mind that he should quit and when you're dealing with the state of mind issue i think under the true child knew the circumstances analysis of both the state and federal court constantly tracked until he's not at the point that he can no longer take it and he leaves and that's what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances the truth was and eagerness is the case that specifically in regards to everest actions if you