every aspect of this case shows why pro se appellants often given different there was no point of discovery there was no preparation and very inappropriate responses to the discovery particularly the deposition because of misunderstanding by the way the plight of the failure to calculate the need to deal with the bankruptcy disclosure even though it may have been harmless it's particularly the band horn case that there needs to be a review of where there was clearly a consistent result and cases where the not the the court might be misled and whether or client during the trial i took over the case later on counsel can we i want to step back just one moment and find out from you what's left in this case it seems to me based on the record i want you basically correct yes so given that that your client is now not under the supervision of those three supervisors what form of injunctive relief could the court order had while she without work and are those are those particular those latter forms of relief are those still live in the case or i know the district court because your client proceeded pro se below the district court to rise to a number of things or or narrowed narrowed the case considerably are those things you just mentioned still live in the case i believe there are a lot but again if yes you are i believe they're still alive well if if the if they are not and i know that you disagree with that but if they are not i'm having trouble seeing why this case isn't needed if there is nothing that the court can order because your client is no longer being supervised by these three supervisors then what's left i mean even if you grant relief there's no relief to be g if those things are not alive then there's nothing the court can order ok thank you ask the court to find that the three van horn condition were not met but going forward i think the issue is was there adverse action harming this if the appellant and i believe the few the simplest thing to do is a look at the in the in the file there were a two functional job descriptions one on page forty five and for thirty six of the record and one on page five hundred five of one looking at those bits to ruling them briefly you see that on one the job duties duties that's what's there on the other one that she's complaining about being removed from their duties are coordinating office activity researching preparing reports developing go back and look at the record the record shows that up until now only lower level black employees have been put in this position permanently so we're saying that was a demotion effective way from where where she was put are we allowed to characterize that as a demotion given that well let me ask you to ask my understanding is there was no difference in pay and there was no difference and benefits at the core of your argument is that the duties were different and the duties as you suggest were inferior in some way to the duties she had before that is that right well i would say i would defer disagree on the question of whether or not there were the difference and just plain first of all they were there for the pay in the sense that she was now required to miss work days because of illness i mean she was hurt on the job she was now required to miss days and lose the pay she had to pay money never park it so there was a different benefit in addition to that if you she was moved from a career path she was and put you know if you're applying for a position and one job ses you pick up big boxes and scan another box if you run an office and you deal with professional both your chances of being and in fact the record in this case shows that before she had been getting promotions which she had appl conditions doesn't suffice to be an adverse employment action and i think your response maybe i'm mischaracterizing is that this was a minor change in working conditions that things radically change for your client and therefore that case clause is not on point the same thing that's minor for you so that you have to work in this office versus another office that's minor before you publish recurrent arise the hope of position that's major and you have to put it in context or you are of here you had a case where this lady was picked out of nowhere there was there's no indication that people who were more  in the context of the other lawsuits and the other complaints being made well assuming you have an intersection i think by the way that you're arguing cases that are superceded by burlington northern and occur if we go back to as i read the cases that i'm citing even though there is a statement of a reason the plaintiff has a right to go back and show that given all the other circumstances that's not the real reason and we're saying that in this case here why i pick this lady in the middle of her lawsuit when other people are  this is welcome no direct evidence but that's our circumstantial just the fact that she had the lawsuit going in to get more than that don't you we have the fact that she has a lot to go on with the fact that she's the supervisor made a point to say we want it up to this great level there were zero difference to the right of one person in the in this position but what i'm saying is the there were other people within her section who were at that level there were other people who had less seniority than she we're stuck with the same record you're stuck with right there's no evidence of it we can't really write but what i'm saying is in this case here there were there was a there were other people in the office who had done the work we mentioned zandra and kim and others in addition to the one who was in a different section the other two were in her section belong to the bankruptcy state so we would argue that mr zale doesn't have standing to bring any of those claims for the monetary damages and besides that there are no monetary damages in this case there was not a change of position there was not a change in air bonuses of i don't see where there's a economic damages in this case did they plead the or try to prove the theory that the plaintiff now has on appeal which is that i was in this new job it caused injuries it caused seems a little before reaching to make that assumption but ok i'm just trying to figure out if the case is moot if that if that essentially that the only relief that's being a request are still alive in the case is something that we can you know we can order we can order an injective release on trying to explore scanning room duties in retaliation for a lawsuit and is based on racial discrimination and if you look at miss brazil's brief in the organ here today all the focus is on the racial discrimination claim all the facts that are mentioned in the brief are all related to the same claim and the problem with that is as noted by the district court here is miss resilin already abandon the racial discrimination claims in both her deposition and in her own pleadings she stated that she is not believe the change in duties was a result of her race she believes only because of the retaliation for the lawsuit so she has already discrimination claim there's no fact about what he said today that there were other people similarly situated who were assigned to the scanning well and as far  not brought up first of all this was not a transfer this was just a temporary change in job duties mrs rizzo continued to receive satisfactory job reviews throughout this time just as she had before she continued to receive the same merit based bonuses as she had before i think it also has been noted the scanning duties were were always apartments brazils the job scription it wasn't something that she did frequently prior to this time period if you look at a seven of the  adverse employment action as noted she was she was not terminated she wasn't the motive there was no pay increase there was not a huge change in her position just for a temporary period of time she was health and other such things i know you'd say that they haven't proven that but is there any merit to that that this is such a fundamental change in working conditions that it constitutes an adverse employment action no i would disagree with that in fact if you look at the record miss work it was always part of her job description but this was a this was quite a bit different work in what she'd been doing as i understood  enough to dissuade a reasonable person from filing a lawsuit if the consequence of filing a lawsuit was being assigned this scanning duty i don't believe so it's as i noted th whether it would dissuade a reasonable person from filing a lawsuit to have this new assignment imposed and you might say it wouldn't because it's close enough to what she's been doing and therefore never heard any supervisor ever mention the lawsuit to her she simply states it's her belief based on the filing of this lawsuit i'm not aware of any precedent for when there's there's nothing but she had d h as is clearly shown there is a legitimate not discriminatory reason for for the assignment of a scanning room duties as miss brazil admitted herself during this time period her division was switching to electronic based records there was obviously a great need for someone to do these duties so there was a legitimate basis for doing this these are a lot of these records were highly confidential so i would disagree that this is something that the any any person injured level could do this is something that you'd want someone who has experience and can be trusted to do this position so mr zero was was asked to do this there was a legitimate reason for doing s but he was prevented from doing so a someone higher up was not part of this supervisory chain so again there's there's no evidence here of of any pretext so in conclusion what about what about the fact that opposing counsel makes the point that i'm pretax that there were other lower level employees they could have done the job lead not filed a lawsuit they were not selected for this particular duty well i did not suffer any adverse employment action she was not terminated she was not demoted her pay was not cut she did not lose any bonuses so there's no adverse action action here so we would ask th you what do you have to say about the damages i'm still your true things worn the characterization of the merit pay is correct the merit pay is based on your actual pay continued to get the same level of evaluation but there the law level that she was getting why she complained it from twenty thirteen on tone down now so her her pay is actually lower that's number one the number two is because she's put on a patch where she is not able to state to go up she is still losing so i'm still saying that that the trustee is now aware of this case and so i don't see a problem at all that with her going forward counsel i want to that ask you a follow on to joe's cottons earlier question i recall and one of the orders earlier orders not the order you appealed that the district judge had characterize what was left in this case as being perspective injunctive relief only it was it was an order of some months before the order at issue here is that a problem for you or is that something we could overturn that's correct and one of the problem in this case she was moved to have counsel appointed and that was never fully developed if i may just have one moment nothing in the to appoint a white person to be in this position there were some suggestion that that person would go along with this but never the only person that's number one number two nothing in the record suggests that this was temporary if you look if you're talking temporary if you do what the other folks actually did do which is you allow them to do this job while they keep their old j d when you change