the first case on the docket is shark versus rush university medical center that sho good morning honors and they have please the court i'm susan shot the plaintiff pelham's thank you very much for letting me speak your today i greatly appreciate i hope i can answer any questions you may have about the case in this case the district court er discrimination cases that are subtle but this is not one of them russia's pain doctor shots close the salary compare their more than double what russia pays doctor shop for the same work and russia has a longstanding culture of racism which includes anti semitism this court has held that use of the n word is inherently racially but rush disagrees does that have anything to do with your case yes it does because when you're an   vironment where the n word is considered acceptable to the listener this was a hypothetical in your deposition of one of the doctor's correct it was a can actually no this wasn't a hypothetical this was a direct question now racism and anti semitism tend to come together and if you're in an institution where it is considered acceptable for whites to use the n word i think pretty much anything goes and it makes other allegations of discrimination very closely something that actually happened and dr levin testified again i videotape that it would not bother him one bit if a white russian ministre that responded to remark in a rush meeting about stealing money by telling her african american husband since you're there but see the only way for us to defend itself ok it could say these remarks were made a long time ago under a different administration and yes they are anti semitic but we you know we think they're anti if we disagree with what the previous administration did we don't feel that way anymore but to say that a statement and this is a hypothetical comes actual when a non jewish high ranking russian ministry or at a russian leading says to her jewish husband when somebody not to so that's the issue there now these remarks began at the time that rushed against discrimination against dr shah which occurred shortly after rush learned that dr saad is jewish and that she does not work on major jewish religious could you tell us what evidence there is of services you have been providing as a faculty member at rush in the recent last five years or so they've they've told us you go to campus only to pick up your preacher you haven't taught in twenty years it's a matter where structure they haven't taught in twenty years but the last time i was allowed to teach and i an important distinction was i believe a couple of years ago perhaps  whenever in russia whenever anyone has asked me to teach i have offered to teach to various departments and if they've said yes i do it when they were asked it's a lecture i do which i have always provided what ever services anyone wanted me to do i have offered them are presently not really responsive to my question well the question i think is loaded because it presumes that russians view is correct that i have voluntarily declined to provide services and that is not true russia has prevented me in the grocery discriminatory fashion from providing all services is sort of like somebody goes to the factory door and there perform the prepared to do their work and they slam the door in the face and lock and say you can't make so so when i was permitted to do so i provided a great successful consultation on the order of thirty to forty researchers per month and i have literally stayed up all night and come to anything last minute to get their work done i don't whine about just because you didn't prepare that's not emerge from my car i just do whatever needs to do to get the job done so i've done all of that i worked on grants when i was for me to do so and if you look at the evidence that is prevent present it is very compelling in terms of timing that there was a very sharp drop off that is very costly time to events with the e e o c that people would not work with dr shah anymore so it's not that i'm not willing and so what i've done instead is something that will in fact ultimately be a benefit to to rush a substantial benefit it was before and it will be again in the us i'm working on a statistics textbook that brings a great deal of recognition to rush i have every reason it will be at little more successful than the first one which got an extremely favorable review in the new england journal of medicine that's all they will allow me to deal and it really hurts because i would love to teach and they will not let me do it and i love to consult with people and they will not let me do it nobody will call a crank you your time is expired ok thank you would you mind sitting at the counsel table please briefs and in the spin the district court opinion yes to the promotion claim the district court held correctly the doctor shot never attempted to invoke the process the rush has for faculty promotion it's a multibillion cheered process all she had to do was contact either  ask them to consider her for promotion dr goodman who was the president of russia time in two thousand and dr deutsch who was the provo did not have the authority to promote d there are five that levels of review in a ten year in a promotion decision for a faculty it would have had to start at the department level the department chair and the fire department advisory committee a committee called the on senior faculty appointments or promotions the dean of the faculty council and finally a profile would all have to approve dr schott says in her brief why didn't dr deutsch intervene on her behalf the reason he didn't advocate for her is because he didn't believe she was qualified for promotion he says that in his affidavit in his declaration unequivocally he has no obligation to advocate for a faculty member who doesn't believe deserves promotion and in his affidavit he said he as as the provo and dean he never for anyone but tempted to originate the process or in deutsch was not the only person on record who believed dr shot was not qualified for promotion to full professor dr susan lord knows is the only faculty level biostatistician at russia was a full hundred three however in her declaration she was unequivocal concerning dr shots qualifications for promotion the full professor i commend you to read paragraph town of her death liberation she unconditionally states that she does not believe dr shah satisfied any of the requirements for promotion of full professor and would not have supported her doctor shot was unable to obtain the support of any faculty member during her thirty years at rush to initiate the process for promotion on her compensation a promotion claims that this report found there were no similarly situated compared to ours the judge was correct there was no comma decision maker on the compensation dr shot is correct that the dean's office was responsible for paying and deciding for compensation the dean's office is a minister by the vice president of medical affairs richard davis but the clearance in this case and dr deutsch who was the dean there is no evidence that either dr the white for mr davis had suggesting that between the first lawsuit and this one rushes change positions regarding the role for her in in essence the you know the reasons for consequences of her inability to obtain outside grant funding for her salary could you address the assertion that there's been a contradiction there for the i don't believe there has been any country crunch addiction the record shows that since  thousand year two thousand dr shah has been informed in writing and orally of the exp taishan that research faculty she's not a clinician that research faculty engage in efforts to obtain external funding now she's a support person on a grant so she has limited ability but the the principal investigators on grants will will up tain it will tempt to obtain funding if they believe the support people make a material it is there is an expectation for research faculty and off faculty but particular research faculty to obtain external funding to support their salaries dr shots position is that because  the fish she said she has affirmatively chosen not to obtain external funding because without any factual support at all that money was was being diverted for criminal purposes or to being diverted criminally and was not being used for the purpose it was intended to so her excuse for not obtaining funding which she agrees is an expectation is that the money would be use wrongfully so she's not going to ask anyone to provide funding for that's that's her position that's the excuse she for she uses for having no external funding zero percent since at least two thousand she's the only one and only biostatistician in the last thirteen years sixteen years who fits proposing he gave her the salary increase anyhow she never obtained the funding as the records show that she is providing any services to the university not the record shows that she's not providing any services and he hasn't for many years the only services that she claims she is providing is the update of a not a textbook she wrote in one thousand nine hundred which she's been talking about for the last five years i believe was nine hundred ninety and it was a text which she wrote at that time but that's the only services she's provide she she does not come to campus she has no contact with anyone she's basically just number on a payroll but she the few minutes i have remaining i just want to address the house the work environment claims and the reason i want to address it briefly is not because there are significant but there's it it's in a vivid example of what this case is all about dr shah just made these incredibly prejudicial and offense of the allegations against rush rush is basically led by jewish executives so you can imagine how we all feel about this i'm jewish m jewish and so it it's offensive but the allegation is made about the way she's been treated at rush every time we asked her to provide an example or some witness and she actually supposedly took it because we were trying to put her in harm's way testified that that was completely inaccurate a doctor or a person who she said contacted her after receiving after she sent a letter to  dr deutsch in retaliation for the out letter dr usha and seven other people wanted to meet with her outside of her home to inconvenience her doctor asha said that is completely untrue she never had any contact  know what dr shot was talking about so in every example that dr shah testified where she actually identified a person as a occurrence witness to something there is record of going to showing that that there is no basis at all to preallocation thank you for your time on your honors and we respect requests that are that the district court's decision be affirmed rush reliance celery on declarations from people who work for cash going in a lot of trouble if they don't say what russia wants them to say i have got e mails i have got all kinds of documents the rules for governance all of that support wh deutsch is the salary decision maker for every single rush medical college faculty biostatistician dr deutsch is the ultimate decision maker for every single russian medical faculty  singled out and have somebody who only has a master's degree and doesn't know beans about statistics decide not to shout sorry it doesn't make any sense so these are all hotly contested issues most of what mr harper has said is completely wrong and i w emphasize again i cannot force people to let me teach i cannot force people to consult with me but when people go when i am working at home and not want to rush and still seeing thirty to forty researchers a day by phone and email which is the only way anybody works should be taken under advisement