was i think not or i think you're referring to the question of whether be plain that there was notice in any event we had always claimed that exception to the criminal exception of apply here and therefore we fired no notice  nder the statute when one he grew up a ladder of no confidence on behalf of the union and gave it to the union rep to give it to the town thereby constituting the notice the court said was absent and so he provided bank records thirdly you could decide that when mr saunders wrote a letter of no confidence and gave it to the union official who in turn gave it to the town manager he was in a sense  objecting to activity which he believed was illegal in the police department we've been the linea did what those objections were took off financial mismanagement having to buy parking tickets on a mandatory system that was illegal under as j c decision usually utilizing money improperly for is own personal use and therefore he was finding an objection or he was making an objection which under b three the statute doesn't require notice at all but i don't think that's what you should do in this case because i think one fairly look at there is a serious question as to whether to rein was correctly decided i think the proper course here is to certify to the s j i would point out that in the during decision itself justice dean said and i quote the statute describe located in certain respects unclear but neither side has asked for certification and we have no intention of further prolonging this well the first circuits arcing of the whistle blower statute indurain it is troubling a strong argument could be made that the statute requires only were written notification to the employer of the misconduct prior to the disclosure the outside body even this notification is not require if an exception applied whether most jurors construction of the notice provision has its attractions that's the one i just stated that the raid approach is not without support so i don't think that's correct we had always claim that when he went to the attorney general's office and met with the attorney general's office and provided clear evidence of a crime it turned out there was a huge embezzlement and there was reason to believe  court found and i think it's correct is that with respect to whether notice that exception doesn't apply and therefore notices required whether a net situation we had  know our position all along had been that he also wrote this letter of no confidence that contain similar allegations and it's always been our position that that constituted the notice under the statute if notice was be one tries to parse out the statute and the things about what the legislature would have intended when you think about it it makes no sense what the degree holding is that after bringing to the attention of officials  issues especially criminal trial issues how it would make any sense that you have to then bring it again to the attention of the official before filing suit because there is nothing that the town officials could have done to correct the packers and the obvious purpose of notice the give them one last opportunity but if it's criminal activity the town can't absolve the chief from a criminal violation of wall so it makes no this is discretionary i just don't see that if it was discretionary whether to recommend mr saunders for promotion or to take away the things that beat did it that in any way would have stopped him from want ability under the whistle liability statute it is a statute that is it and that acts of private right of action for employees against employers for practices and policies not one specific incident necessarily  contains equitable relief the courts can order the person back to the same position or an equivalent position this these functions are not functions of compensatory relief these are functions  liable if they retaliate for certain things and it defines retaliation is taking adverse employment action against the employee he wanted us to say that if he failure to recommend someone for a position the supervisor's decision to recommend was an adverse employment action and it would be odd to turn around and say that type of thing isn't i retaliate tory action of the employe for that big city and the letter the only communication in the record that the plaintiff is aware of between the former chief and the board or really any member of the town on the subject matter the letter of the chief was glowing when it employers are entitled to notice when these types of allegations are being made and this is what is said to be happening in their house colloquial clue when we put all your heart out to address the a crime but was bootstrapped version of the humes letter and the plaintiff claiming that it was his speech that it was in that letter and that the town was aware more specifically that it was his speech employer employee there may be crime happening and i believe it's a practice of the employer and i need to provide you with a reasonable opportunity to cure that issue that never happened in this case but the very briefly judge ordered found that the causation question had to go to your ears and that is a finding which i think should be binding on this or he found it was sufficient facts in the record in which a jury could foreign that promotion was denied that was on the first amendment claim against the police chief what does it have to do with the whistle i'm just going to get that your honor with causation is causation if there's enough evidence in the record to show that  adverse action was taken because of certain conduct it's the same conduct in both cases the causation analysis would apply there's no difference in the summary judgment standard secondly with respect to the swedish right just want to make clear what the record actually shows there letter of no confidence constitute the objecting behavior not the embezzlement so i read that we're stuck with that but with respect to the both respects and b three letter of no confidence he did say that that had not been waived and the letter did permit us to claim that there was no notice required at all because b three doesn't require notice so there really there was only waiver on one small part of it not majority of it and finally here i just want to make clear that there is ample support in the record for the proposition that despite his sterling credentials the fact that he was highly regarded by the panel that interview the fact that there was a big can see that was fully funded and open a decision was made not to promote him i know that's not as easy as that an affirmative decision saying we're going to promote this guy instead but no promotion was made and they let it go vacant and using acting sargent's and there's a good inference that doctors because they were so upset with him were both a lot of no confidence that he wrote and his blown the whistle on the chief's possible and best woman a significant union funds thank you thank you