appeal is that it was granted preemptively that there were a cornucopia of issues of fact we go to the issue before courts terminations the four corners terminations even though he was an at will employee he's got a stab machine that this is a contract so therefore the several items in the offer letter one bein his one major issue here on the appeal whether or not that noise something right did he have to any payments after he was let go he had the right to under the circumstances that are what are you what is the authority for his rights to to me it seems to me that all those were subsequent to his being let go and therefore it was he was gone right well under new york state or on or when it's in temporal part of the compensation package he does have a right to it and it's not it cannot be just denied because he was not there that's effect discretionary they could have been held or withheld or not he didn't have a right to a bonus other people got bonuses afterwards but they did have a right here that they just got bonuses so i believe that it was it was non discretionary it's part of his offer letter now they could have he could have gone through the performance review and they could he said look you're not going to get the twenty percent target we're going to give you fifty percent we're going to give you one per we're going to give you no percent however he's entitled to the bonus that's part of his compensation package and the fact it was fully documented he went through this performance review he was an award bonus down to the very dollar what it's the severance policy talks about it he put it in his affidavits not be dispute and what's interesting in that if i was interested in that paragraph it talks about if you don't if you make it through the middle here this is interesting and this is something that mr kyle talked about if you make it through the mid year you're actually giving one hundred percent of the target bonus to twenty percent so it's really showing that this really is part of his integrity part of the compensation even without a performance review you're going to get your bonus one hundred percent prorated as long as you made it through the mid year so that's inconsistent it's rome over stocks that were actually what it was in stock options he just lost all his stock stock options everything that was just gone iraq's overnight you know they were just they were basically dividends that became stock awards these are stock  i report and a report that is laden with hearsay double hearsay it's obviously not a biased it's a it's a very biased report and spite it's obviously i mean if they just the they engage an all out assassination it's really pretty pretty pretty shocking what they did to this guy and i mean they sort of backpedal in their argument at the lower court and they say he was he was he violated core reasons in the core reasons be that he used too many e mails personal e mails and never it wasn't provided in the motion don't know what do you really know the content or anything just  outside employment ok so right so if i think it's arguable i think the way that they define conflict of interest talks about best interest of tab i think he was working with for the best interest of tampa but if you want to say if you want to argue that there is a convert you anything ok looking at ok ok all right well i would i would say that that's still a fact issue whether or not the next step is whether he whether management actually knew of the conflict because they maintain that proved right if there's a this other gentleman who was he had talked to about it was that was the disclosure you know is it's not that he was the supervisor who he was the one not whatever your honor because the supervisor is the person he's supposed to disclose the conflict to so it his supervisor that approached him and initiated it in fact it was a supervisor that signed the agreement that engaged suffering pharmacy so his decision so his supervisor knew there's no question about his supervisor knew when in fact the record is pretty clear from the e mails that within weeks that's enough well i'm not saying it's nothing i'm saying that still a jury questions a fact question whether or not that was sufficient to cause that what that was sufficient to terminate someone who is in one thousand year employee for the only thing that that letter says regarding a bonus is that mr ball would continue would be continue to be eligible to participate in ted's bonus program quote subject to the terms and conditions and the twenty thirteen bonus program and quote that's all it says about a bonus there's no promise about what your your adversary pointed to page four forty eight what about page four forty is part of the severance policy the specific provision that he pointed to doesn't apply here this refers to an employee so the bonus that issue here was relates to two thousand and fifteen mr ekdahl was terminated in two thousand and sixteen this provision applies to employees who are terminated halfway through the year so if he had been terminated fifteen the bonus policy to which the what's on for forty eight simply has no application to the to the year in which he was dropped to the bonus that that he's talking about that's correct on a the bonus policy what we how do we verify that how do we verify that it has no application to the bonus that he's talking about well again this is the severance policy and it relates to employees who are terminated and regard to paying bonuses it states quote eligibility to participate in the plan does not guarantee a bonus award so it's a discretionary bonus policy for all employees and mr x balls contention that the policy somehow contractually obligates to have to pay him a bonus has no basis also as your on a pointed out the bonus policy explicitly now and ambiguously states that an employee must be employed with have on the date when bonuses are paid it's undisputed that mr at ball is not employed have already made in march of each year so it's not in line with the calendar year it's more in line with the fiscal year for budgetary and other reasons again mr ball's employment ended in february before any pay increases were given his theory is that one had he remained employed to have a would have given him a pay increase and that two he's somehow entitled to a pay increase or a check for a retroactive pay increase to january first even though he didn't receive a pay increase on january first or on any other date in two thousand and sixteen before his employment ended as with his other assertions mr paul doesn't identify a contract that would provide for such a payment his only evidence to support this is an affidavit that is submitted in opposition as summary judgment motion in which she alleged that in a previous year he received a pay increase and he also received a separate check for a retroactive pay increase we dispute that factually but it doesn't matter for purposes of this case because again it's a breach of contract case so whether he even if it were true that he had received that payment in some earlier year doesn't a stab push a contract and titling him for that payment and ask you about the basis for his  black this e mail where she says everybody should put a stop to this because there's a huge conflict of interest in in it ball through sufferance supplying these drugs to us and she copies tony  here your honor mr tung wasn't deposed in this case so they have the undisputed evidence as mr ed puzzle search that he told tony tom it's irrelevant because he doesn't dispute that he did not follow the conflicts of interest policy he didn't disclose it in writing he didn't disclose it to the legal department he didn't disclose it to h r to compliance those facts are under spirit so whether his immediate supervisor knew about it or not that's not what the i'm asking you about it's an email from jets of blackness you know i'm talking as no surprise to you right it's a four to four sure you've seen this before yes and i'm sorry but with zafir having full access etc is a huge conflict of interest to g a corporate issue that's where you are but this is the heaven gauge suffering pharmacy i believe in february or march of two thousand and fifteen this is after the conflict of interest was discovered and after it was discovered these are the conversations that occurred and they said hey what's going on here and it made its way through through the through the structure and that's when they said you need to stop this right now there's a conflict of interest that wasn't disclosed mr mackillop involved in doing the investigation mr payments he seeks in this case the only real relevance of the four cause issue is to the stock options and that's because there's a provision that says if an employee is terminated is not terminated for cause the stock options expire  at the latest ninety days after terminations if they're terminated for cause they expire immediately upon terminations and these are the vested stock options the document that showed all the stocks stock interests you're both just pointed to your  honor that's a u b s statement from u b s is an as a third party administrator of the document that govern the stock options is to have this two thousand and ten long term equity based incentive plan and the incentive plan is what governs the stock options why would you have a statement like this from u b s if you didn't vested interest in those stocks your honor even if you had a vested interest under the incentive plan and they all vested in on unvested options expired at the latest ninety days after his terminations and it's undisputed that he didn't even he changed and said that it was stock options but he was referring to the stock options that mr tung had told him he was awarded in two thousand and fifteen we don't dispute that there were other earlier stock options at least according to that  which hasn't been authenticated it appears that there were vested stock options but it doesn't matter because the expired ninety days after mr eccles terminations become so and with regard to the severance policy again he only i just want to clarify i'm just going to read from my reply brief at the lower court counsel indicated this is the first time you've heard of this argument with respect to the judge is issue with his severance and the advance bonus i'm going to read from my reply brief  the plaintiff explains the following and i quote this is a quote from my client's affidavit temp his argument that i was not eligible to earn bonus he made the same argument at the lower court he made the same exact argument in the entire plan year of two thousand and fifteen i was terminated february two thousand and sixteen however my bonus that is currently owed relates to two thousand and fifteen plan year which is based upon team performance thank