between plaintiff's age and cut in health insurance premium cause and in the employer act on that correlation fortunately for us the defendant actually put its attention in the employer's president grew by right we have lost several of the older sicker of the east and should have some consideration on this didn't both of them deny that he offered to pay for a supplemental policy to embellish the medicare mar there was a need that the facts clearly show that the defendant had supposed a correlation between age and they reduce health insurance  now but i do remember that one of those cases talked about the fact that their hand needed an extension if you will or the back of the temple proximity where there is evidence that the defendant basically set up a paper trail they start to take actions that all move the heat to the wrongful act the term nation and in this case that's exactly what happened it was only about three months after the medicare that all the sudden marjorie is written up for these alleged acts of misconduct and there were no basis for these allegations later allegations is that the your argument no that's not mine i think that the at least the last the last one that the prompted and a situation that was known by the defendant three months before even the medicare and they knew about this alleged problem would terminating a different policy or alleged and we have evidence to support the fact that their domination of more trade was based on her age correlation between her age they're reducing help really we have fact is they said is they had a riff and they fired or laid off or whatever you want to call for people that's a fact as you know it's not an allegation to how you have to show all that that's a legitimate reason what is pretextual about it what facts do you have to show that that's pretextual ok first i would like to back see that you ever objected to their statement of facts on their summary judgment motion i did you yes i do believe it and didn't you go back and look at the response that i prepared in or in relation to each of the pair of us i think that you will see that there is well no what the district court found was you never felt under the rules of the district court we've all have to live live by these is you have to make a very specific to follow the rules you have to go by line by paragraph number and you have to inject them explain why and i didn't see that you done that you made your brief you may have objected to it or your  are there are certain things that i did not respond because they were i didn't have a problem it would be considered mid but if you look at some of the other parents the responses that i had the language that that support them so that the court could go to those absolute and not have to wade through a ton of other paper imagine all of the additional five that i at and any of the seasons that paraphrasing i specifically i understand what you understand and the rule you have to refer to make it simple for the chord to follow what you're doing and i'm done with the district court you have to specific considered admitted in less controversial employ means response so you're saying i'm not real clear with the district court's means by that but i didn't quite honestly i didn't i operating on the basis of a contemplated reform that unless you put that in dispute their statement that they were exercising their rights as an employer to reduce their force it's in black and so if if it's both then do you meet the but for test for purposes of age discrimination i believe that we do it certainly to create a question  medicare and a supplemental and the issue was the company surviving or being prosperous with the cost of their medicare this may have been a dispute but not one particularly based upon ages simply permitted these two people to go on medicare and have a supplemental coverage like about fifty million other americans of and i can't and i'm troubled by why was there ever any is there any evidence at all as to why they said no were they getting less coverage from this proposal that was being would maybe be made in good faith and had nothing to do bad at least about their age i would have two points in response to your first point is remember th but consider that in total with the rest of the evidence in the sense that he goes completely he goes straight to those two people who were identified in that quo need they were the only two that were old enough to take medicare one thing right so i didn't go to those two people why didn't the defended ask one of the other younger employees to maybe their husband or their partner had a life claim of age discrimination in fact was her terminations her age the but for reason that she was terminated in february two thousand  a meeting asking them to take medicare coverage that six months before she's terminated this court has held that as a matter of law this six m howard however they were not the individual that made the decision to terminate ms track her immediate supervisor mr grasso made the decision to terminate her that because the company was going to the red and she was the weakest performer in that particular group surely he was simply their caps paul right there is absolutely no evidence of that here and there and in fact  that they were concerned with health care costs or there's no evidence linking mr howard friends conversations with ms trap about taking medicare to mr grasso there is no evidence between the decision maker and the owner's concerns over health care costs the past talked very simply does not apply and in order to find a  individuals who took over ministre our work in the person lines were over the age of forty and also pointed out that when the company went through its two thousand and seven  time when his track would have been sixty nine years old she was not terminated at that point you know you're talking about the legitimacy of the district court a offering medicare coverage the law permits companies to take advantage of medicare when their police reach the sixty five and it's not per se age discrimination to request that employees or as part of their health care plan that they can take on medicare coverage but without the simple middle coverage just might be inferior coverage from the usual employer employee me what is your understanding of the the rule fifty six point one compliance here and you had prepared it for the district court a statement of facts  believe that any of the fact that the plane into the fence up for work disputed material fact had to right to that paragraph and say the district court neglect counsel mr weiss is saying that and also breach somewhat to the district court didn't address some of his responses and i don't think that fact by the district court but what was it was that challenge evidence we have heard disability are when we look at the complaint she made allegations that she was going through our stop we need surgery and taking vacation are sick we recover those are the a short lived or minor there's no evidence really for eight reasonable jury to conclude that she had anything other than a minor transitory impairment there or correlation between age and the wrongful act and i would just point out that we haven't talked much about it but the subsequent email after martin trial was terminated that mr said to the insurance company again we can actually if we can actually substitute his word expecting with supposedly from the case we'd like to stay with you but we were expecting you could put it suppose in a rate decrease from the group becoming younger and healthier not an increase the again these e mails