a retaliation point at all now moving on to the issue of intent there's various arguments that have been made there was they have argued factor complaints of discrimination cannot be a factor here and you just you can't do that now that is when my client started having trouble and complaints about his performance and it went on for a relatively long period of time but mr kelly who is a division manager that worked with cedric williams indicated that stand where it was basically subjecting hostilities where you keep coming after somebody was indicated to be an indicator of pretext and summary judgment was reversed in that case then shortly before my client was put on a performance improvement pla n there was a gentleman named sanford who had brought grievances and my client indicated to me and then this is something my clock are carcase out there who committed false creations and have not been terminated and you can't treat people differently that's a racial discrimination issue and that he advised white wrong acknowledged that's true that's true i think it's the subsequent statement that we need to settle this case and that there's a discrimination problem internally that got him in trouble not the deposition testimony but they were close together now having said that there's a determination problem subsequent to the deposition should be accorded some white and no favorable inference should be drawn from the fact that they're saying that he did find in the deposition so i think on that issue money that's special a lot of money but it's not just money in the record and i'm not sure about that i'm not sure about that but they didn't really dispute that my once again if you look at the record mr ritter testified that he had veto power not he immediately corrected that but you know people w so that they could get him in trouble put him on a pitch and mr kelly felt that that was not warranted and he said that this is the only person he's ever been asked to do this for if you look  these numbers were calculated grievances things like that and mr holiday indicated that the grievances were just as high under  lack of respect by division managers but there were only you know three that he worked with shelley you sannio who indicated they had no problem with him in battle in arkansas concluded that mr williams was a private face a case of discrimination based on his qualifications i think there's a lot of evidence in the record that mr williams is not qualified given the  rove had made a statement about iraq need fairfield being someone who played the race card a couple points with respect to that st of all there is a statement on the record  better and said we can't do this we can't take action against him based on that base so sweet race can't be a factor in our decisions there is no evidence in the record that at all to support those additional statements with the one statement that williams did allege in his affidavit was that mr ruef made the made the allegation that wright may bear feel plays the race card the important point that the district in any way crow testing this alleged statement or somehow engaging in protected activity in that regard there was another statement made that name and kelley who was also a division manager  nothing whatsoever to do with the case with the case that was before the district court mr kelly division manager was mr williams superior after mr williams was demoted out of that job you know in fact i think it was two jobs later was when he came under mr kelly and district kelly who really has his own set of issues with the company was deposed by the players was attorney and and i said i think that one of the banks that stand really asked me to do with respect to mr williams was wrong so that has no effect on this decision that is at issue here  the same thing and there they haven't been fired and there's a discrimination problem that is not in the record at all and in fact mr bear field was i'm sorry mr williams was specifically asked in his deposition did you ever say anything did you ever say to anyone in management the company that i think we are discriminating against rodney field i didn't use the word discrimination but i would say and i'm trying to get them to understand you have to do it the right way not when i say do it the right way i'm pretty much telling them you have to be consistent mr williams was the labor manager for the company and he admits  suggest somehow that mr williams was protesting on behalf of mister which was protesting with respect to  affidavit from susan norwood i told him that same afternoon within about two hours that's fine we have no objection to you doing that he did not get that affidavit and instead after receiving two extensions of already been concluded that the that this would affidavit appears and it doesn't appear as a submission to the district court in support of the summary judgment motion one opposition to it the stock type benefit opportunities but the others the other thing too is that motion for discovery sanctions when norwood affidavit st appeared there was an supplement the summary judgment record which showed that on march th of two thousand making the plaintiff's counsel told me i represent her and i'm going to get an affidavit from her and i said fine and that information was before the district court and that caused the district court to say a month and a half later when you again said she just retained me this is new evidence so i want to introduce our to the court that that was not a decision maker in this case allegedly having veto authority over somebody over the district manager the court found that that that that cita of the deposition was misleading at best the adenoma page fifteen and i think it's important to understand the context in which that whole discussion occurred it had nothing to do with this case  deposed as a thirty six corporate representative and he was being asked about a terminations in a potential terminate decision involving another employee in which the district president originally said i think we misleading about mr norwood she's our client we can't do things without her permission we did not have permission from her to get that affidavit that's thank you thank you