remains whether a reasonable jury could conclude plaintiff's race as a motivating factor in defendant's determination of plaintiff and i think the easiest way to approach the analysis is to start by pressing the issue of whether defendant's anti arab comments were strange remarks or not as the district court below held if they were not straight remarks then i believe their district courts analysis collapses on itself it's important to look at that comment itself it's on page seventy six of the excerpts of the record and i don't i normally do not read to appellate court but this comment is critical you can't he's told soon after nine eleven you can't speak arabic it's work and you can't telling around with your arabic friends and all of your channels at home are arabic arabic channels and i don't like that now that is not an ambivalent or ambiguous statement it is an anti arab statement and it and it demonstrates discriminatory and most because because it is not a statement of these issues are interfering with your work performance are these these  the use of this speech is an issue at work it's i don't like it and it's referring to the activity away from work hanging around with friends in your channels in the context of this case those are not st remarks they are evidence direct evidence of a discriminatory out of us and we know that because prior to nine eleven the evidence on the same page you are sixteen i think you are seventy six pardon me that was a mr drake i have not made any issue about him speaking arabic she never told me i couldn't speak arabic at work sometimes sitting next to me she would come and when she would hear me speaking to apply to an arabic she would come in well great you speak two languages she she was even like i'm a nice that i can switch between the two languages so quickly and he goes on she comments about how do you switch your mind from arabic to english and comment with books and connect with both conversations he concludes after nine eleven all of a sudden she started you can't speak arabic anymore at work context in which they're going because she never goes to him about those complaints the evidence they have is that she's a maid sheen is drake is made aware by other soup by other team members of these issues include english classes he doesn't deny that he was interested in improving the question the point the relevance of context is as to concerns raised by coworkers to mi drake they're never brought to his attention until after nine eleven it's true with the performance issues regarding quotas well these are not straight remarks because there is other infusion of discrimination which were powers be treated before nine eleven versus how was he treated afterward and before they have all this evidence about him never made his personal quote well to begin with it's not a quote it's a personal goal and that's how it's presented to him and that's how it was described by ms drake to him and then the issue is at various times he's not as good as other people well the facts as to how he's treated in what is said about his performance this he's only complimented regarding his performance intel after nine eleven minute i believe it's of it's approximately a year it's fourteen months by the time he's terminated eleven there's no written warning there is no verbal warning despite defendant's own policy for threats of discipline policy to use those only before nine eleven the only written evaluation he was given in november of two thousand he gets the highest rating possible improving in june before nine eleven when defendant to search does so poorly against quote are straight till some he's doing a great job in july before nine eleven he's complimented about winning the july so you'll contest in august before nine eleven the months those whose performance the the precipitating of events if you well and the problem i think i think the fact that the defendant in numerous times in its brief tries to suggest a decision to put mr i've got on them working for the tips the performance from before september eleventh points to the weakness in their case the evidence is that the proof was discussed only after nine eleven mid to late september  drake against our client only after nine eleven and then as to other this other indeed discrimination once the nine eleven event of the arab individual the only arab individual working for her change and the evidence is that it changes the tone drastically that's mistress power of our a pardon stone and next paragraph after nine eleven she was only critical of mr august we have it's the change in her behavior is so dramatic   august level in august there are three others books rated at the same level or lower the evidence is clear that of those three people one other is terminated one is terminated  the one that was terminated is terminated after mr aga the one who was terminated is not put on a work improvement plan at the same time as mr i've got that work improvement plan if it was instituted at all is instituted after mr august why does mr auger happen first why does mr auger happen right after nine eleven why is the other person that's terminated not put on work improvement and at the same time why is the other person that the the difference between fair treatment when you look at all the other factors there is there is certainly enough evidence and certainly we wouldn't be here if there was certainly but circumstantial evidence and i believe that's a heightened evidentiary standard that is improper and and never should have been adopted frankly but having been adopted it certainly is no longer appropriate after this court's ruling and cost and more significantly the supreme court's ruling in affirming cost the evidence the treatment of evidence before this court and any other court if it does not just english between circumstantial and direct evidence and the goblin trace needs to be changed so that practitioners are not faced with a heightened standard that mean mislead district court judges i lose deserve unless there's an immediate question i'll reserve the rest of my time for a drake addressing communication problems that plaintiff had and that issue was subsequently addressed by history with mr august so there was a context of english communication skills being addressed in that understand what the customer does whether the customer has an interest in ability to become or the potential customer i should say the lead has the interesting ability to become a customer before it feels sales rep makes any time in minutes on the phone trying to sell rational software development tools which are a fairly sophisticated type of software when i teach department which we have no interest in or use for that and she  it's a logical explanation but it is it's trying to explain that she didn't mean what she said or at least in mean how most people will hear it so my question is does that change at all drake's comment was directed towards helping plainest english into practicing his english coincidentally or incidentally and i think significantly plaintiff elsewhere testifies in his deposition at it that the district court below correctly found that that was an isolated straight remark and not a proper basis for a different standard should be applied to circumstantial evidence and direct evidence beyond what that godling court suggested and i'm also suggesting that if you are going to have the godwin distinction were i will go through all those out of the sense that i think keep track of i remember them all if i skipped one feel free to interrupt just ask for an explanation of that the evidence of different treatment before and after september eleventh i believe is is observation that before nine eleven she only heard positive comments and after nine eleven she only heard negative comments doesn't tell us anything without unless we know that she was following northridge around twenty four hours a day seven days a week and had an opportunity to observe demonstrates quite clearly that he was criticized before nine eleven and he would complemented by a drake after nine eleven there were e mails from ms drake to plaintiff during the test during october of two thousand and one complimenting on him on doing things well coaching him helping to help him to improve and cost congratulating him when he did something well the plant has just pointed to an alleged first time use of performance improvement plan by ms dra performance improvement plan in july of two thousand and one for devore storm and when she presented that performance improvement plan to deborah sturm in july of two thousand and one mr and quit this firm was ranked in the same low ranking same group drake could use a pen furthermore the the in august two thousand and one of the ranking which put ted ferris in the same group as plaintiff led to a perform improvement plan and a missive for mr farris and to the terminations of mr ferris's employment in november two thousand and one the exact same month in which plaintiff employment was terminated so mr there's no evidence in the record support pla representation to this court that mr auger was on a faster track determination than mr ferris was the only evidence in the record that they were both put on pips after the august ranking and if they were both terminated in november of two thousand and in august of two thousand he was given an opportunity to learn the job in the ramp up then an evaluation was made over a period of time after you have those three six months to ramp up that he wasn't getting the job done and in the ordinary course of his ranking in may of two thousand and one in august two thousand and one led to a conclusion that he was the only telesales rep in beaverton oregon during that fourteen fifteen month period and never hinted personal goal and whose team never his team quota there was clearly a need to be addressed and everybody else writes in the same or lower groups in the may and august two thousand and one rankings would subject to some form of disciplinary action and i'd quit after being warned about performance or was put on a performance to prove prudent planning address the circumstances of why his performance you know was not a basis for a performance improvement plan at that time so i realize looks like i'm almost  explanation that it's a misunderstanding that exact paragraph is denied in plaintiff's affidavit as inaccurate incorrect and not the way it happened improve your english language skills this is not a question of a cold shoulder this is a question of a dramatic manager of a manager you would want the type of manager i'd want to work with easy to communicate with helpful helpful to me at the beginning and working with me on accounts prior to goes on prior to nine eleven she was like that she was perfect before nine eleven after nine eleven question what happened after nine eleven a totally different person personality completely completely she becomes nervous around nervous is goes from helping in being available and being the perfect manager to being unavailable being nervous around him being not by closing him off when she goes when she went to hear her for help after being put on the improvement plan she is unavailable she doesn't have time for him or the testimony is that when she says i'll get back to you she doesn't doesn't do that she so so she puts him on the plan by in a phone conversation the minister for vara overhears she lies about his performance and his attendance it's ladies and gentlemen of the jury it was a factor it may not be the only factor they may have been concerned about performance and other issues but none of it came to the fore until after nine eleven when she went from being perfect to being nervous around and cut off the court refused to be available and made the anti air question of fact for the jury to decide  it's an accident of history that all these things turn their defense their difference to the process a million times is that it's an accident of history well it may be an accident of history that caused  change your attitude toward arabs but it's not a good accident of history that insulates them from liability for having done so