judge sterling abuses discretion and that finding that union issues of material fact were raised with respect to the issues when somebody's judgment those issues would have been chemical and mars had me knowledge of the day to day operations business operations miss mccurry if first stuff began working at the king cole of marcus facility support that you asked that i look at the response and i would say technically be cheap she attempted to to address it but she was unable to my response would be that even though i have not cited that in the brief and don't have the case law in front of me but i do believe that this being a type of seven case and retaliation being a part of it that the tablets here circumstances test is a declarations even if it's self serving and of course not only that we have a declaration from a miss mccurry but we had the exploration also from human spliffs who was the human resource manager you have an explanation for that rather i don't like to make excuses sole practitioner working trying to get the help of you know both of my civil obstruction if anything but i think that's a very difficult issue to allege in in in these types of cases even if there had been as alleged tampering with documents and splits in his own declaration said he didn't monitor or check mccurry he's worked there's case law to suggest him to person office where there's really no supervisory activity going on  and the level of expertise that was being denied to many undefeated record shows that i'm not sure how to pronounce his name spitz blitz he managed the human resources functions for the entire warehouse that information all just this was not done that this information should have been sent and it should've been posted within two business days so as a result miss mccurry felt that she was denied the opportunity  where's mr carville had a couple of years experience i think the previous situation maybe she was at sears a logistics maybe she managed one generalist so and she had no special sort of occasions from the society of favor the overarching question that summary judgment in an employment matter is whether a reasonable fact finder could find that the plaintiff's protected status caused the adverse employment action this court also has consistently held that not everything that makes an employee on happy is an actionable adverse employment action with those two guiding principles in mind we're here today to answer the question of whether either macwrite was subjected to employment discrimination although portions of the phrase arguments are difficult to navigate the undisputed facts surrounding her employment can go are exceedingly clare and should leave the court to only one conclusion that no discrimination or retaliation card at any point in time misspoke or no longer works that can go but it is undisputed that she does not challenge her germination in this lawsuit she remained employed it can go until the time that can go lost its contract at that marz warehouse at which time all employees at that site separated employment the allegations that are raised by mccurry in this lawsuit amount to a number of non actionable gripes and in some cases their complaints about conduct that does not even relate to mccurry such as the hiring of in house legal counsel to defend against legal matters on behalf of congo her the first complaint addressed earlier  opposing counsel relates to a title sudden claim of being paid less than her direct supervisor the pullar decision eight twenty nine after three d eight forty four cited in our brief discusses this very similar fact pattern where the fact that a direct supervisor may have delegated a number of his duties to a subordinate or may have also not closely monitored the work of his subordinates and that does not change the fact that those positions are not similarly situated and the fact that they are being paid differently does not show evidence of a discriminatory torrie intent to discriminate on the basis of gender turning to the next argument raised by my opposing counsel which is the failure to promote them as mccurry i think in addition to the fact that there is no evidence in the record that she ever applied for a promotion of the undisputed facts that are in the rocker also reflect was more qualified for this position than ms mccurry would have been and did the company follow its normal hiring practices the company dead attached to our motion for summary judgment is most barbells application for employment and our opposing side has made much of the fact that they don't believe that this job was posted but in fact mr carville presented verified answers to interoperate tories at the lower court which are part of the record at docket eighty because they were attached to one of ms mccurry used earlier motions and these in iraq dettori answers actually explain her entire process of applying for this job which included submitting a resume on indeed dot com and then having a third party recruiting company proly just six reach out to her and cement her resume which is one of the options explicitly delineated in congo as hiring policy moving on to m the next claim of discrimination she argues that should not have issued a right up to her on top of the fact that this right up was not an actionable adverse employment action which i believe is clear from the lloyd vs swifty decision and she's also refusing to acknowledge the reason that she was written up she was not written up for missing a punch at work or failing to clock out she was written up for appearing to have misrepresented her hours of work when there was evidence that she had left work at six forty and then informed can't go that she had only been at work until five o'clock pm as reflected in kind of  motion for summary judgment that was the reason that ms mccurry received a write up and there is no evidence to suggest that her write up was motivated by any other reason and she suffered no consequences for that it was just a note in her personnel file correct ms mccurry also argues that the hiring of lori barbell in some way took away her duties and constituted a materially adverse action to the case law that she relies upon for those argument which is primarily the tarte seven circuit decision could not be more dissimilar from the present fact pattern that we're faced with in that decision there were office workers who primarily had electrical computer repair duties were  to positions where they were outdoors digging ditches all day and mysterious duties virtually did not change at all when laurie viable was hired she continued to do the exact same more with the only difference being that employee relations matters that had primarily been passed along to the corporate office were now handled by someone on site another part of the retaliation claim appears to be a strange assertion that  not selected as a witness in mary madison scase against the company or her claim before the illinois department of human rights here's where the mysterious mary madison comes in correct and it is is arguing how that would be an adverse action toward her and certainly if if ms madison had wanted to select our as a witness obviously she could have done so but there is no cause no evidence of thank you thank you afternoon your honor my name is tom davis on the attorney from origin of corporate and not surprisingly i agree with everything the numbers are contrary just told you when she is right then i'm done because if there is no discrimination but can  alleged discriminatory acts or knew about them and failed to take appropriate steps within its control to remedy the situation when we look at again it's been discussed the difficulty of trying to exactly sort out all of plaintiff's claims but as i reviewed both the plaintiff's primary grieved and its reply brief its claims against mars to try to call into one of those two buckets essentially boils down to two things first of all a contention that because mars agreed to fund the position of the h r manager that that somehow triggers liability for alleged discrimination i don't really understand that theory  and the references in the record to support that claim are really misleading because repeatedly plaintiff says in both their main brief and the reply brief that they discussed the hiring of l barbell the there's an e mail that plaintiff repeatedly cited between mr todd moore who was the boss of mr coffey who was the regional distribution manager that e mail simply says from mr moore to mr coffee they want us to raise their overhead costs so that they can hire an h r manager at some of our other distribution sites there is an onsite h r manager but this site is really inefficient already i'm not sure i want to spend more money on it what do you think and coffee replied there are definitely some leadership issues at this site i think it's worth a shot and we think that's something that to go ahead and do no discussion about the identity of the candidate no discussion about any underlying alleged discrimination claims for the reason for that hiring it simply is not in the record the other basis for the claim against mars relates to mr coffee's attendance at morning meetings now there is absolutely no record no testimony in the record that would show in any way shape or form that any of the alleged issues starting discrimination were ever discussed at those meetings you know but news mccurry didn't ever attend the meetings interesting lee she said that she had opportunities regularly to talk to mr coffee who was approachable but she never directly informed him of any of these alleged issues therefore there is no basis for under either of the to find mark's liable the conspiracy claim is even a bit more bizarre and the district court we think properly analyzed whether there was a potential discriminant conspiracy claims even lies under for an employment discrimination action we've discussed that in our brief and will rely upon that but the fact of the matter is when we look at what the allegation is it again related to an alleged fraud you want affidavit court ask hoffman about his allegations of obstruction of justice we also take very seriously an allegation that we submitted a fraudulent affidavit to the court the testimony cited by mr hoffman for that piece of evidence again is not there there is nothing in the record to show that mars was involved in the hiring decision of ms of our bell for fifth based on any knowledge of alleged discrimination if there's nothing further