our final case for this morning is craig harris against the office of the chief judge of circuit court of cook county and others  be reserved for the jury if there are clear issues of material fact which are disputed here whether the youth development specialists which both mr harris and his partner  right so so the position that the juvenile center took all those calls that right was that it was a joint responsibility to make sure that these checks were made in the paperwork properly  other thing that i'm concerned about with your position so i don't see what difference it makes whether mr turps try had one prior disciplinary event when she got extended probation or whether it was zero because it was still considerably less the mr harris had so one or zero seems to me not a material fact we can assume consistently with mr harris's station the extended probation was characterize as discipline but you're still an difficult situation coming up with a story that they're so comparable that he says that he can prove discrimination by the different treatment well there are certain facts they are not in dispute namely craig harris is a sixty year old african american male right it has been at the facility a decade and this partner mr straw was a forty forty year old white female no evidence that in fact that this was this logging every fifteen minutes into a log book of the events going on during an eight hour shift that mr struck testified in her deposition that she assumed the responsibility for entry in these fifteen minute logs that that's correct and it was nice of her to do that that i that apparently the case the juvenile center the county whoever took the position that they were that whatever she might have said you know try to take the hit it was actually a joint responsibility as far as they were concerned for both people just saw it on a dollar shift there are thirty to fifteen minute entries tripp did make at the end of their shift it was a mr harris mr harris and nothing to do with it they imputed liability to mr harris because you know it was a joint responsibility but there's  people who did the exact same thing name did not enter an entry part of fifteen minutes log i should just like he was concerned was he not and i think i remember this that there wasn't enough that it had to be able and had you been able to come forward with some of these other people that would have been one thing but he says that you failed to remember cite any other details about these on offense and identify people and mr harris didn't know the names of these people let alone see writes on page eight provide any other specific so i guess there's a problem here you know a proper of the evidence i don't really need proof i mean that may be unhappy david from somebody something that would back up what are saying judge craig harris and mr extra testimony is just as credible as the hearing officer bruce burgers or girl doll labs or anybody else's for that matter and we have stated facts which are part of the fourth record where the exact opposite view was presented intent and motivation and scribe more credibility to one side than the other and what we're simply saying is judge that's and proper that should be left to the jury to a trial when all the facts can be fleshed out and presented and clearly you know the summary judgment stand there is that there are no the tiriel facts in dispute and no other conclusion can be reached in favor of the not moving party and that's clearly with all due respect to just not the case here charge there are many disputed facts among them some of the most salient wants and we would argue judge that what happened here is you know they used this incident quote unquote as a pretext to get rid of or tried to get rid of mr harris you know give him a twenty five day suspension when his partner got just a one day suspension and he didn't do that he was a union member at the juvenile detention facility and you know  to use this incident as a pretext to get rid of a sixty year old african american male who dating want to have their place they wanted to bring in new people good masters degrees and other a background information that they thought was suitable for the task of monitoring these juveniles so it was a pretext and that's all it was but it judge lately when he had two sets of two versions effects should not have engaged in a jury exercise you know who do we believe you know who's more american he's male and he's over forty years old but in front of you and much of his his appellate argument was devoted to the argument that he should have been punished at all but that's not a proper matter that was never that was a claim i decided to ask you whether the question whether there's a policy about everybody being responsible to record these things in the log and if so whether there's a dispute about how consistently that policy is administered is here in the case it's a clear rule was it written down in some book somewhere or is it something that employees were instructed about when they joined the office or what employees were aware that they were to accomplish all of their tasks that was a rule and was the declaration of person's name i forget right now e we're not saying that she had he had to go back and double check things but it was his responsibility to make sure that it was done and that's not too much to ask his suggestion that somehow well it was her responsibility therefore it's not mine just flies in the face of the responsibilities of these councils again that it is gullible dude but you were starting to say that actually the starting point had been that they both violated whatever this rule was and that this case is really only about the discrepancy in punishment ok continue and in order to use this court said the sole question reviewing some or judging motions in our employment discrimination cases is there sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could determine that but for the in this case race gender and age of the plaintiff he would have been proposition this in the circuit and so that's the point here his only compared to the ballot is is mr mr praed a minimal display history mr harris had an extensive history history the other employee that talks about this is way too sketchy thank you very much i think you have about a minute m first of all there is no rule a county policy that governs or mandates a fifteen minute entries into a log there is not and the record doesn't contain that second mr trump who agreed and volunteered to handle that portion of the third ship responsibilities as she worked together with greg harris stated that she did all the checks all thirty two of them during an eighty two eight hour shift shift forgot the law too so she did the checks but forgot to log two and she admitted it during a deposition that she forgot to log in with respect to plaintiff mr harris's five disciplinary actions previous actions all of those were