for my voice i'm just trying to get over a cold your honour's sink playing we are asking this honorable court to decide whether an employer who rise misrepresents and fragile only conceals information to an employee complaining of illegal activity and thereby to consider the very real human dynamics that across the workplace and that occurred in this case between mr starr ago and northern trust in the person of his refused to participate in a legal activity in northern trust again that is the only issue forward stretch goldberg granted to requests so that we could be here today lower have a statute which is not him big us pretty clear on its face saying that there has to be a refusal to participate and can you tell me of ways first of all he refused to put private confidential information and rather northern trust because the contact management system so that anybody could have access to any information for example there was one of his clients they had him during financial planning mr started to learn that their client had a what they call an excuse the language but it's not my language a bastard son and they would want to put that language in that information so just anybody could know about it mr starr because that's just an example of one thing that mr started to refuse to do second thing that i can point to is that he refused to participate in this trip distribution of literature marketing literature that northern trust passed out to clients and prospective clients that he thought was not only misleading but even fraudulent and he complained that that was illegal he also refused to recommend products that they clients would then have to pay a fee for without knowing that they would have to pay that extra fee so i don't want to participate in misleading and fraudulent when telling clients you can buy this product without also disclosing that they have to pay an additional fee about what was legal and what was not really whether he checked with legal whether he checked with compliance and every time mr sartor complained mr hines said all right check that out it's ok and so after a while he he he he was assuaged by that language by that representation which turns out that's immaterial issue of fact whether it occurred or not because we have just deposition testimony for from west gringo who's the chief compliance officer at northern trust who says in part that mr ridge highs never checked it out with me and i never told him the same answer which then mr heins presented to mr which put mr sorry go off for the moment and that's right during that period of time when he was being lied to he didn't actually say i'm not going to do this  and you know take the chance because i was suggesting earlier that he would be fired for it but at the end there he was a short tenure just about a year he said in the summer of zero four i'm not going to accept your there were times when so like a set the actual words i'm not going to put this information into contact management because it's going to violate the privacy of my clients where i'm not going to distribute the slow torture because it's fraudulent it's themselves illegal activities if i may address that your honor or the management context system is not in itself illegal you're correct here on quiet from the reading of the until it was just probably for business for well he actually concluded that the use of the system was illegal it was in a violation of what the agreement was with the client and it was a violation of their privacy and under the act not only do you have to show the refusal to participate you have to show the activity to be illegal and third that your client  appeal it noted that they are not disputing whether any of their two abilities that mr c are a good complained out complained of were illegal or not so there that there's i mean it's obviously up to the court but from would remain after all the motions and all the arguments ocean to reconsider and so forth that i believe that we believe are our remaining is the issue of what is the definition of refus of the aisle so to speak on that your honor so that's why we believe that the discussion here and of course that's a star opinion you may have a different opinion is that it should if it is a narrow question of what is the saying is if he had not been told by his boss in the workplace if i may because i used to be a human resources director so forgive me for those but it just seems to me that we need to recognize the actual reality of someone working for someone else that it's not right we're friends and i can say to you you know i'm not going to do what you're asking me to do joe because what you asked me to do was illegal what he did whereas as you suggest your honor tried slowly ask mr hines this is the problem here i don't want to do this because i could get in trouble we need a license the s e c says we need licenses there are these other complaints the record reflects and every time the record reflects mr ryan said it's ok don't worry about it i've checked it out everything's ok so in the workplace what's an employee to do well times over the period of his short tenure that yes that's the argument you're on or that the fact that he was refusing besides the reality of what he actually refused to do you also didn't i think i probably covered it thank you very much violations of what he believed to be violations of law add up this appeal mr gubb because right is with respect to the court's ruling below that mr sarika as to count two of his complaints look in the very beginning of the birth the issues presented for review are not rather refusal to enter things and contact management or refusal to recommend product or refusal to raised a law and indeed really aren't refuses within the act and all dressed up first contact management as the court recognized this is a business system that lets the bank and bank personnel know what appointments occurred generally what was happening with clients because many of the clients have multiple relationships within the bank happened here and what the record states step that mr started to refuse to put things in the system but it still says he had concerns good a member of his fellow financial planners about putting some things in the system and so what happened was the records say he along with you in the financial planners came up with a system which has indicate that confidential information was contained in a file that's what the record shows yes to the distribution of misleading or fraudulent material records show that what the record shows is that mr sarkozy and a number again of his fellow planners did not get the word that lott did not lie some of the statements that were in the materials so that the thing to they went to the person who was responsible for producing that material and said we'd have to change it we'd like to amend it and they did it without repercussion there's nothing on the record that indicates anybody had a problem with any of the changes into the changes were accepted and the used back material going forward as far as recommending not recommending more than trust product again we believe this is just another attempt to invent a refusal where none occurred the record is very clear that financial best products and good and he testified that he never recommended products just because he was being pushed it yourself he said he did what was right by his clients so we just missed those refusals we don't believe the record shows any script were to experience the statute in some way to say well under certain circumstances we'll say there's a refusal even when there's not a refusal who is anybody to know that the your supervisor tell him everything is ok so he doesn't refuse it's not enough because it would at essence involve the school work doing the legislators job and adding point two or three or practices and also saying i'm working my bass off in front of a high level executive and his wife the whole set i want this guy like that lead to a final running there after there were three more continued to attend meetings with well strategist he continued to try to do is job his behaviors clearly lead to his firing that any complaints he made it into the timing which again there's an issue in the in the papers about who said what when times barron's what's very clear and what's very which i'm disputed is this mr hines testified without dispute that he recommended decided that he wanted to terminate mr saregama in november the allegation mr hines complained said that these clients complained about mr sarik on this was one of the reasons that the bank says that they fired him he's after those in their part of the record indicate that they don't agree with mr hin side of the story as to what mr sarita supposedly did wrong so that's why in part judge said that's a disputed issue of fact what was the real reason that he got fired and if i may also your honor a couple things that mr jobson said he's right but he's not completely right for example on the contact management there were some changes made because mr sartor complained about it but not completely so that the result was there were still people who had access to private information that they had no business for yes there were some changes though assuage mr sarek a somewhat but not completely the same thing about the literature they did make some changes again to assuage him however not so the satisfaction in this is mr starr to go on the record in the case that there is that disputed facts about that real life events that happen on the job so again as i said before and i'm sorry if i'm repeating myself if you're working for an employer your livelihood depends on it and you continue to continue continue and continue to say you're doing something illegal don't do it i can't participate in that outrage that's ok mr saratoga i will check it out with little or i'll go check it out with compliance and he comes back and says i've done that and it's ok you don't have to worry about it but the truth is the material should affect exist well read infected it and whether or not he actually lied about doing it and that's why we're say northern trust should not be able to use that as a shield to protect themselves from the effects something on my whistleblower statute the record is replete and i don't have to worry with the details about what mr scott sarita complained about and i don't know that it i mean george herbert saw that there were security issues of fact about that and he really looked at the should refusal some should reflect the reality of what goes on in the workplace and if someone is constantly asked your boss this is legal is it ok because i don't want to do it across comes