issues and one or two legal issues is that the first thing i want to talk about because it's kind of complicated is the employer has changed its reasons for why i'm a science and was fired i looked first at the position statement that  summary judgment then is again refers to all twenty two pages and then is brief it talks in terms of well it understands that the district court said those case notes from february of two thousand and twelve had no bearing they still set the stage for what came later so yes in this brief it appears complete appears to be suggesting the february two thousand and twelve case notes may have had a bearing on it but they weren't necessarily that's it's a change in the employer ought to know why they fire somebody it starts with the have you identified as what you believe they claim is the reason we don't doubt that it was because she was pregnant that it was her expectation that there would be no but i could maybe i didn't ask my question clearly they've identified some reason that they claim they found her other than that she was pretty right what do you believe that what are they claiming their deeds you just told me that there's something a fair word in something and i told her that well it's kind of all over the map so we don't get to any claim there well i missed the deadline but so did others and they weren't disciplined we don't need to get to that because the fact is she didn't miss a bit is that right yes and that's not only yeah technically the firm is the deadline and i'm here is my case but that's not my fault technically but yes there were people who did in her words miss a deadline and it was their own fault meaning they got a deadline they got a decision but they missed they didn't respond quickly to that mistake line but just to understand what was going on in the office they represented people in trying to get social security benefits if it's on the first instance this is before allegation about her missing and their land their laughter found an appeal of an adverse decision of the a object yes or an art well i was going to add and if you miss a deadline if you have good cause you have a deadline to respond as for three years but but so the deadlines though are the notice over the now and all that it's a case that's already in the office it's or we're not talking about people walking in after they've received an adverse decision and then they say i want you to represent me or my appeal we're talking about cases that were already in the office but there was representation at the at the at the lower level administratively to try to get the benefit that that's my something that was never ours you know with all that we have the testimony of the record whether it was their case all along or whether they i think a key issue is going to be when was the terminations decision made her last day was october fifth that was a friday october eighth was the following monday she actually gave birth i took her twelfth so within a week she had given birth tracey  didn't depose her but she did two different statements on summary judgment and responding summary judgment and her story changes from one affidavit to the other and one affidavit from december twenty third she states that the decision to  made before the delivery date meaning before to over twelve but the letter notifying her of her terminations was dated october twenty second and said it's effective october nineteenth three days ago jamie jamie shaw is the is the senior judgment or after trial or whatever would be to to establish that that the firing was because of predators yes right i mean it could be for some other irrational reasons having nothing to do with whether she actually missed deadlines but as i understand it that's why i'm asking you so you can tell us is there anything in the record that indicates any an on pregnancy status just the comments about by george escobedo asking which she would ask george will i have a job when i come back and he would he just would make a joke out of it is that analysts i don't know i'm not sure how to interpret that i think that's something to do or to have to do but he wasn't clear he wouldn't say when you're there that you'd have a job or no you wouldn't he would make a joke he would just say hold your job for you chuckle chuckles to him it was it was funny and of course there's an expectation among employees that if you get pregnant you'll be in trouble but you know this you know would describe that as that's not interest for a manager that may or may not be admissible in court was the non discriminatory reason given by the employer has  distinct from pregnancy and would you do to rebut that and false or not correct well that of course the challenge of this case is a you know i do fair amount of plumbing cases usually we have a or to look at what we don't in this case we have the case notes but they're very squishy and i don't know what when they come out so there's the story changes it's a put a chart in my brief about that the story changes slightly from person to person and from pleading to letter to pleading my understanding of the bill was i think the big issue allegedly was missing the deadlines not keeping in touch with s s so scared ministration and the pinion of one jamie shaw said hiding the ball that you know this isn't something that you did not read them and i won't know what they are and how you feel to rebut my my challenge is that is that like the one thing that they're just a court focused on of was allegedly missing the deadlines and heinie of by sending good cause letters meaning that letter and then i sent it and i asked george on the day but you know typically paralegal just don't remember that kind of detail two years later about a case so the judges ask putting the burden on us to prove a negative to prove we didn't do something cynthia actually did rebut it she said i never his should have been before a jury or a judge rather than accepting who was this could be doing testimony and not giving her an opportunity i believe so  as i talk about that about the believe the medicine is a kind of hanging on that pretext plus use the standard of the planet has to show the reason provided by the player is false and that discrimination is real motive in my concern is that latter half showing that discrimination was a real motive i think when you see that and saying there's honor society versus hicks talking about the ultimate burden yeah they're both numbers always on the play have to prove this commission was a real motive but in summary judgment we can't do that we can show the pretext has holes issue has articulated consistently legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminations and that is missed deadlines and covering up of there i suggest here the harshly doing the exact same thing not just missing the deadline hiding the ball making false representations heinsohn has not created a fact issue as to pretext and as this court has found in this court is also held the fired employees actual innocence of her employers proffered like essentially is irrelevant as long as the employer reasonably reason to believe those reasons and acted upon them in good faith with the evidence that is happening now who was the decision maker no they don't even have to reasonably believe the reasons as long as the action wasn't taken for some prohibited purpose agreed pregnancy race sex age group the decision maker here was mr shaw he was the one he's the c f o he's the one that gets to hire and fire and what happened on this one is that the  isn't to terminate was after reviewing the documents when he was told there were some istead lines there was a failure to inform the supervising attorney and that there was a cover up with those letters that he starts thinking now harming might my client do i put my carry on notice those are big important things and i would refer to the record are two ninety five to ninety nine there's no evidence i instance pregnancy was a factor in char discrimination stated another way there's nothing that i have seen in the record that goes as to the unworthiness of pretense as as cited in other cases and what we're saying happened again i gave if the record conclusively reveals some of the nondiscriminatory reasons for the employer some of the players decision i think we have that hiding the ball may be false representations or if the plaintiff only creates weak issues the fact that we have that he as to whether the employer's reasons were untrue and are there are abundant uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination occurred and so everybody saying the same thing when you start looking at the deposition make sure all your cases are caught there updated if you have any deadlines let's get amend that i'm citing the right for the record at two forty seven five eighty six he promised she promised the her attorney more rendon review the other files found other missing deadlines notified her attorney supervising attorney in distress committal who notified the comptroller miss lennard they got the that the  that that was their policy and i have to go back and look at that record it was not go unless they were there for two years or more