relied virtually exclusively on temporal proximity and in doing so excluded what the plaintiff's theory of the case was and that was that this is a cat's paw liability case very specifically on the record a section of how they deal with each other and talk to human resources when it comes to the hiring and firing of employees  somebody else to act on their wrath well that you can see through the e mail evidence as well as your own deposition testimony that they knew that they had to have the stamp of approval essentially just essentially a rubber stamp of man by the name of bar bar to ski when you look at the deposition testimony of mr barr tuesday mr barr tuesday himself conceded that he did not know why he was firing my client he was looking to miss brinkley and ms goldberg to tell him what do i say to sandra lovelace if she calls me and asked why she's being fired mr bags even if kat action in terms of the other defendants using that individual what's the proof that those individuals and a discriminatory anima and in did conducted themselves on the basis of something in volleys of them all just one courier are you referring specifically to goldberg and frankly it's yes ok dating back to february ninth while my client was still out on her family medical leave my client had to send them an e mail saying she would not be coming back before the entire laps or on the l a leave which was scheduled to be march fourth she had gone through a series of progressive treatments trying to deal with her physical issue and then twelve days before her leave was going to lapse she was required to undergo back surgery there's an e mail exchange on that day between brinkley the record is supplemented by brinkley's deposition where she says in that period of time brinkley was acting on the belief from rumors she had heard that my client was faking her despite undergoing surgery goldberg in response to that february ninety mail on the same day and says i'm fine with her burn it up or leave if she doesn't come back here on the fourth she's fired so in addition to that my client does come back on march fourth and begin to work with work replace it with work restrictions physical restrictions of the doctors that imposed or she was using her  that right yes but when she returns on march fourth it is with work restrictions on in mid april of two thousand and fifteen paula goldberg sits down with my client for what was supposed to be a performance appraisal review that entire meeting was essentially an interrogation as to why my client needed these accommodations because goldberg didn't understand the necessity of it she didn't like the inconvenience of it she didn't believe the medical expenses that my client said she incurred as a result of the surgery the issue of her performance appraisal was never enough address it was nothing but a criticism of why she had to take the up on the a leave so going back to your question about what is the particular evidence of animist between brinkley and goldberg those are the two it's not just an incident in the abstract it's not just that they may not like each other and they may not have liked but connecting the most important thing is to discover that they were making decisions on the basis of something the and taking actions in the market correct and one thing that just jumps out in this case is that as of may twenty eighth two thousand and fifteen when my client's performance appraisal is completed she's meeting and exceeding all requirements as she had in the past twelve years she has no performance issues whatsoever as of may twenty eighth on july tenth paula goldberg e mail to sandra sludge and human resources telling her that and this is her words this is goldberg speaking i believe that i have enough evidence right now to discharge her one minute later literally one minute after goldberg had said i've got enough to send sandra lovelace packing even though her performance appraisal on may twenty eighth indicated there was nothing goldberg sends an e mail to brinkley saying two words i win what was the date july tenth this is weeks before her ultimate discharge what happened what's the significance of july thirty first incident on july thirty first that's really a culmination of events that started happening and i know it's important to put this in the factual context of the court could appreciate it i know you're on the outside looking in to see how these doctor teams and hospitals set up the medical assistant position if you have a permanent assignment to have physicians you are likely there for life you will never be moved again when came back from her medical her f m l a leave all of goldberg did not and refused to assign her to a permanent physicians team she was assigned this transitory position where she may be working with three different doctors in a given week so in july what happens is there are four physicians teams that are demanding a full time medical assistant like my client sandra lovel that's that situation had never occurred before for doctors for different teams are requiring and demanding a full time medical assistant like my clients that's what she does too with those four one was named dr singh the other was named dr lockhart had been promised that they would get sandra but goldberg would not assign or to that either one of those two teams although those doctors were specifically asking for sandra lovelace and goldberg would not assign her there the reason that is significant is that it is in the first week of july under our theory of the case that goldberg was under the pressure to find a way to discharge sandra lovelace because again as a reminder of may twenty eighth two thousand and fifteen there are no performance issues with sandra lovelace on july tenth she july thirty one they are out creating reasons to discharge her actually fabricating reasons to fire her so would you what's your factual description of the july thirty first incident because it seemed to play a part  determination to see if the employers decision as to why my client's just charge occurred is to be believed it's the single issue of behavioral issues on july thirty one which i do not believe my  methodically being set up with concocted evidence all the way up to that july thirty one meeting and my client knew it so when she walked into that meeting she knew what was going on she had reported both people in that meeting her immediate super buys are brinkley and the h r rep sandra sledge ford retaliating against her for reporting claims of discrimination before have enough to fire her right now that's her message to sandra sledge an h r product she copies brinkley on that as if there had already been a communication between goldberg and brinkley about what goldberg was going to tell sludge she then again within one minute of getting the response back from sandra sludge tells brinkley i went good morning judges morning i'm going to argue on behalf of both of them police counsel for both of them are here in the courtroom the undisputed indeed admitted facts about thirty one provided and over arching basis for this court to affirm those facts nowhere mentioned in point of so opening argument or in any reply brief because no one wants filed and i listened very carefully to counsel's opening in answer to the court's question he didn't really go into those facts and i'm going to go through them because they're critical and those facts are case dispositive in our view for four separate reasons first plaintiff's sworn deposition admissions that on that date she refused to engage in any discussions with her supervisors about personnel or performance related issues conclusively established was that she was terminated or a legitimate non discriminatory reason namely that she was an unmanageable employee not meeting the legitimate expectations on that date or those reasons that specific reason for her terminations or terminations decision was limited to the events of that day and if i might if i might there's a second reason why this is case dispositive the reasons she gives for failing to engage in any discussions with her supervisors about her performance was that she has made an h r complaint that is a blatant violation of this court's subtle precedence on the so called insulation doctor of a an employee cannot insulators self from her own disciplinary anti retaliation remedies as this court has made clear in numerous decisions or set out in our argument point five third those undisputed events of july thirty one w classic intervening events that broke any causal chain from any purported pretty protected activity or involving any of the other things that counsel mention in answer to your questions about july thirty federal and the state coin and most cases are this court's and bank decision in kiel as well as the missouri court of appeals decision in shore an intervening event like decision was undisputedly true she was refusing to engage in workplace discussion chats hall liability cannot exist for that reason alone catspaw liability is w nefarious actors who are motivated by some animists try to persuade the decision maker by some sort of falsified record falsified facts to make that determination decision here is a stated reasons we're undisputedly true now our brief sets out a number of points why each of the claims and sub claims cannot stand for separate reasons beyond what i have just said but this overarching basis namely that what happened on july thirty one was indisputable truly forecloses her claims for those for reasons i have given their set out in various points in our brief but i wanted to clarify them for you in this argument in if i might i'd like to review what the truly undisputed evidence is as to what occurred on july thirty one which is nowhere been addressed  point it whether in writing in this case or oral and those facts are set out on pages eleven and twelve of our brief we take our pro undisputed facts we did below primarily based on plaintiffs own sworn deposition testimony that's the basis for our proffered facts now i understand that every one of those was disputed but those disputes were improper under this court's campfield pyres decision and its proud and its subsequent case that's the case and wind of cases where this clip were discord has made it she admits that she was called into the meeting because her supervisors were there to coach her and immediately upon being shown this checklist which was to be constructive criticism for her and to give her confidence that she could perform the duties of her job she became combat it and she said i know how to do my job and then she started crying all and disputed our own testimony and plaintiff had made the comment so when they were meeting with her on july thirteenth old bird asked to ask sandy lovelace did you make that comment about angie butcher not wanting to work with white people and she said she did not make that and goldberg's response was and there's nothing inconsistent in plenty of stuff some only about those goldberg's were sponsors was i'm happy to hear that you have denied it that's all i need to know let's move on and plaintive said i am not moving on so she was not accused of having made a racist statement in a conversation nor where she at any time thereafter by the way that's another reason why any complaint she made the h r after she had received the disciplinary warning were in bad faith because she cheated in her complaints that i have being been accused of being a racist when that is false and she admitted at her deposition that no one ever accused her of that well she said they didn't use that word evidence that from what your five finder concluded she drew them once and maybe not for no reason i don't think inferences with respect are on a really apply here because her complaint to h r was specifically i have been accused of being a racist and then well reasoned that the whole point of asking her about was to determine whether she was acting in community communicating with coworkers on the basis of her complaints h a goldberg and frankly had accused her of being a racist but they never did and i asked her in deposition if they ever accuse you of being a racist she said no dan tani mentioned t goldberg or brinkley that this that she had her that he had heard this comment he made but he didn't say she was a racist either and you know she sued him for defamation about that and that case was thrown out of court and that was affirmed because that is it it's not a family tory and it didn't happen did not happen that way but if i may go back to her admissions about the events of july thirty one because again we've given all kinds of reasons why th case can't go forward a but this one cuts across everything men at that meeting she and again she admitted she was not called a racist at that meeting and there was no conversation about the so called butcher comet at that july thirty one meeting and she specifically testified to this this is a direct violation of this court's pronouncements on the insulation doctrine in the end to end abuse of the entire retaliation remedy she said quote these are her own words because i had filed a formal complaint at a jar i felt it was inappropriate to discuss personnel or performance issues given the fact that i had filed this complaint and it was pending at the time the very notion of discussing performance related issues was just too upsetting to me to continue the conversation closed hooo that is a direct refusal to engage in critical discussions that must occur in the workplace she was by or own admission and unmanageable employee who could not meet the employer's expectations which was exactly the reason why she was terminated but it didn't end there then we have the further incidents when she went back to her to bickles so she said i can't i can't  continue with this meeting i need to leave and so she was politely allowed to leave and then back at the cubicle she was not leaving she was working at her computer and she was doing other things there and then after some time it has really went to check on what was going because apparently what was going on because we were concerned she wasn't in fact leaving and then when brinkley arrived point to if backed up dramatically threw herself against her desk naam going to quote from her own words sworn testimony how she described it quote i have never jumped so high at my life and i twisted around and i did fly up against the the desk and then there is evidence also from disinterested third party employee witnesses who were there is that she said that brinkley disinterested third party who gives that kind of explanation to the employer the employer is allowed to rely on that as a source of information regardless whether plaintiff in her conclusory affidavit might want to dispute everything and then we have the affidavit of one of the cold workers natalie taylor who said that played its conduct at the cubicles there was very unprofessional and disruptive she was quote very aggressive very loud and seemed to be out of control close quote this is the kind of information that was truthfully passed on to barr to bob barr choose he was not involved in any of the stuff that my counsel has described he didn't know about he wasn't involved in any of that stuff but the information he received was about the behaviors that are undisputed that occurred on that date and for those four separate reasons i'd given this case can't go anywhere in the us in the summary judgment should be affirmed now as i explained we have given other reasons in our brief why separately each of the the federal and state claims must be there must be a firm and so the summary judgment on each of them and those are numerous grounds based on subtle lines of authority from this court and from where replicable missouri case law as well my time is about up i'll be happy to answer any further questions the court may have and stephen thank you mail to senators lead saying i've got enough to fire right now even though she doesn't doesn't have any reasons to fire her on july thirteenth my client is called into this meeting with paula goldberg and dee brinkley and confronted with that statement about did she go out in clinic don't hire angie butcher she doesn't like working with white people she immediately took that as an affront because goldberg w s yelling at her did you make that statement in clinic in front of patients in front of all the other employees that's when i remember who's on the paper you can't tell  correct my client said she was not to let it go because they were not letting that go they were she was my clients being yelled at for having made that statement the very next day july fourteenth my client didn't goes to sandhurst legend human resources and says i am unfairly and improper only being accused of being a racist and yelling out a racist statement in front of the clinic and it's goldberg it's brinkley who are making this accusation apart from that i am now being criticized for employment performance issues that are not employment performance issues i'm not being allowed to go to the doctor's jeans where the doctors are specifically asking for me to be assigned to their teens that happens on july fourteenth and she says to sandra sledge i think this is because i am being i have these accommodations for sledge she gets none so she goes back to sandra's flood seven days later on july twenty first and says what's going on why aren't you investigating this she still gets no response she got over the head of sand in human resources on july twenty fourth seven days before she's going to be discharged and says to the supervisor leanne stuart i want you to investigate what's going on with my supervisors because i'm getting sander sledge so when she walks that my client walks into this meeting with de brinkley who is she complained about it was making accusations of discrimination against on july thirty first when she walks into that meeting sitting there dee brinkley and sandra sleds the two people she has gone to the head of resources for to complain that she is being discriminated against so she starts crying that is the