have a brief recess before finishing for the day and we began with hush versus rushed on the louisiana hospital company l l  process the second one for not getting her full time position after she was hired and the third upon her terminations the court did find a problem facia case so you know  she's a black the male adequate job performance had adverse employment actions under circumstances that impl discrimination the court found that essentially our argument is the business reason provided by the employer we think was an adequate to overcome the issue  that she applied for the full time position problem use the thing and says she never applied for a full time position it was always part time but that's not on the end of the sheet that's interviews she but that's not sure what the other two women than that they've actually left out some evidence that we think would be useful now i understand that for the business reason you just need to articulate a reason if it should be found the discriminatory action why is that you know i mean what specifically is the evidence that she applied for a full time position and all she said anyone at that date and what they were chosen until a month later so i suspect that the writing on the on the interview she wasn't even done that day but the interview she is having written a job number and  have written three are am well her online application essentially says apply for a job and that job number is there but it doesn't say whether it should be full time or part time and that's not done until after the the interview she insists that enough so the problem from your standpoint is that they didn't give a reason why they didn't hire her in a matter of a protocol i think of time what time period lapse before you get a full license but one woman did not even have that and yet she was hired over mishaps and who had two years of experience working part time at different places essentially the same thing with the failure to give her a full time position once she was fired a month later she's out to openings and she talked to a supervisor about it and the supervisor says you're not qualified and so i want to well again we got the he said she said well she says i'm looking for a full time job i'm working on the job and then a month later she does it's a month maybe two months later she does get a full time job someplace else she's looking for a job so if it is the word of each person against the other then it just seems to me that the issue construe it in favor of the assassin louses of the term a nation we're talking  are mishaps and so she got a full time nursing position elsewhere at the ms hanson centers that she got a full time nursing position elsewhere correct she did a month later and the hospital identified two people who she knew had full time jobs elsewhere and continued to work p r and for a while at least one of them did i do have information that one of them is essentially resigned afterwards but that don't one two three and she was at level one one ship a month i thought she had to do she had already she was purged fired from that list in june she had already complied with the key requirement and they're telling us you can't you can't so she had there was no reason to perjure that's the point and now the apple e says well we did all these work days that come interfere with her work day but that's not the requirement for her p r here and she only had to full time job someplace and then how work at another time you'd be too tired but that's not the that's not the the requirement for the p r him if other people could work full time the the apple has not given us in a schedule to show this is the way the hand of the schedules and we look at your schedule to determine whether or not we can hire part time the the  good morning your honor sir craig watson met the pleasure here today on behalf of the northern louisiana medical center your honor i would like to step through a little bit and be able to answer some of the questions posed by judge king and by judge willett this case is a classic textbook case where the individual can show that she fits in a protected class that there was some adverse action but where she fails and what the district court noted is the retuning granting of summary judgment where the plaintiff such as in this case fails to meet her burden of persuasion and the protection will element and that's what all this case is about for your honour's is whether or not at the end of the day after the discovery after the evidence after two years of litigation there is any concrete evidence of any discriminatory animus or intentional discrimination that she can controvert our burden of production and so i'd like to take this court briefly through exactly what happened here we did have a situation here where we had nursed positions that were opened up there were three nurses that applied for those positions ms hassen was one of them ms hassen did apply for a full time position but she is the only nurse that identified herself as also having availability for p r and status so when the interviews were conducted ultimately the decision was made to place ms hassen in the p r and status which she said she was available to work the other two individuals yes did they have less experience absolutely but if you look at the pay which is always dispositive whether or not there could be some discriminatory animus the one that just came out of law school that got the full time job was paid one thousand dollars an hour the one that was a paramedic that had one year of experience was paid twenty dollars and fifty cents an hour missed hasson who had the three years of experience was given a rate of twenty six dollars an hour to work that available rate along with five dollars in differential pay she indicated she had availability and she was placed in a position that was available for her so that she did meet the promise fish a case of originally with respect to whether or not there were other individuals but she didn't sit in the exact same place she was given a higher rate of pay and she was afforded the opportunity to work at the job now she may come in a dispute that and say well i thought i was getting a full time job well guess what there is some onerous the placed on the individual here she admits that there was never discussion when she was interviewing as to whether or not this was a full time position the undisputed testimony that you have in the record from the director who was providing the interview said i believe she was playing for the p r and position and in her deposition she also says that the p r informed that she was reviewing at the time of the interview says sheets for the other two women who applied can you explain what the circumstance was a lack of a moving forward to discovering the author she we produced the personnel files of the other two individuals there was a motion to compel it was granted in part and denied in part and she never perceived it or pursued any additional documentarian evidence that was before the court and so that's just a lack of proceeding with respect to the discovery we produced everything that was required both in their interaction towards the request production of documents as well as full compliance with the order of the court this matter was originally set for summary judgment she filed a motion compel saying we didn't finish we didn't finish outstanding discovery we produce those we perceive so we're not before this court is evidence that you cannot look at now because to proceed with it let me you speak very fast or you might want to slow down just ten ok now tell me something when they conducted this interview of these three candidates what position was that did the hospital think it was interviewing for emergency room nurse that they had three they had three positions available two of which were going to be full time positions and one of which was going to be an as needed p r and position and so miss hassen indicated she had the availability for the p r and nurses the others did not and she was afforded she was afforded that right there where she fails and this is showing that that decision just because you had white applicants given it doesn't mean that she's met her burden of persuasion of showing that it was pretextual our undisputed evidence was we hired her because we thought that she had good p r and availability and we wanted to fill that role if she wanted the full time position and only wanted the full time position she should have spoke up and said two for p r a and you've you first told us that they were unavailable when i ask you the question you said well that's not in the records so is it in the record or not in the record as to whether the other two indicated in a federal ability for p r and it is not in the record and i warrant so you should have told us that well i would just submit to to to you judge smith that again we produce a burden of production it's a limited on a legitimate articulate reason for the nondiscriminatory justification if hassen wanted the opportunity this way this court that that decision is not correct she could have taken depositions of the human resources director she could have subpoenaed additional documents she could have gotten the hartley answered my question is it's not in the record it is not with respect to that what we have is miss assonance moving forward with respect to the terminations process here which the court found that there was no legitimate that there was no provocation case your audience this is this is even clear that there's no discriminatory adam is here we didn't set the separation into motion here mishaps and went out got other employment came to the emergency room director and said i have a full time job working from nine to five the p r and shift that's testified to was to be work for the day they needed daytime people to fill that up mishaps and in fact when she disclosed that information to us she was already scheduled to work multiple ships she had to be pulled off the schedule we had to reschedule and get other individuals to work those ships so what happens is in this particular system whether you believe it's or right or wrong there's certain nurse positions that are assigned requisite numbers in order to fill a new nurse position when a nurse is no longer able to fill it they have to have somebody else reapply and that's exactly what happened here she was purged from the system when she she indicated she could no longer work during the times for which we needed the p r and filth and what's notable is she was told that she was purged from the system but if she if her situation changed and she could fill those jobs she was eligible to retire to be rehired and that's just a system that's a business decision that the way the hospital runs their system we have a certain i mean if ms hill made reference to some of the others who also had had from time positions at the at the time and were treated differently she did make reference to that but i would submit to you your honor that record doc to eighty shows a purge list in addition to we exhibited in our brief multiple individuals that were treated exactly the same as mr haslam which is that when they are unable to fill the obligations that's needed they are effectively put in the system as resigned and then they are allowed to retire and apply for a position and that's what happened to whether you were white whether you were black whether you were a male whether you were female full time or part time and so we submit to you that there is simply not a scintilla of evidence of any racial discrimination in this case whatsoever you simply cannot say that we had two white applicants who got jobs and therefore i was discriminated she didn't show anything else to this court other than conclusory allegations that she subjectively believes she was treated this way she never avail herself of any opportunity to come back she as we said her i guess i understand i understand her case with respect to the initial hiring the other two candidates were arguably less qualified to she was so there's three applicants for three positions right and they give her that p r and position  and they say that's because she didn't make it clear that she had to have full time work although she applied for full time work so i'm how is it that she's failed to make a prime official case again run that by me one more time sure judge king i'm not disputing the fact that she said she can make the promise facia case on that element but what we have is we have the burden of production which we've shown which says that when sandy the emergency room director was interviewing for the position she believed that ms hassen was applying for had applied for and did apply for p r and availability and she was placed with that requisition number which is the one thirty six in the record doc ms has and never said i need full time employment i want full time employment she was handed a p r an agreement and she didn't say wait a minute i'm confused time out i applied only for full time she never afforded herself so we had no other information but some only position to bless it that she wanted and so i'm not saying she's not meeting the prime the facia i'm saying we produced our portion of production and she has not done anything else to persuade this court or certainly not the district court that there was any racial bias or animus that could support the idea that summary judgment should be dismissed the summary judgment should not have been granted in this case and so for those reasons along with you look at the pattern here you know we did have african americans  very limited six month period of time where ms hassen workforce there were five other african american nurses that were hired at the same time three in the bed surgery unit two of them were p r n i'm sorry three of them were p r and two of them were full time and so the simply no evidence ms hasn't even admitted in her deposition testimony wall while you were working there did you have any issues did you feel that you were treated being treated differently and she said no so this isn't a pattern or a practice of some sort of racial bias or discrimination against  individual we have an individual that said she had p r and availability she was hired for p r and then she worked there without incident the hospital would have an assassin come back and work today we've always said that she had a free availability to apply for a position as we sit here today and then she took the initiative to go ahead and get a full time job which would necessarily conflict with the needs of the hospital and so she was purged with the ability to rehire she was treated exactly the same as other individuals in that circumstance and for those reasons we say that the court the district court was correct in finding that ms hassen cannot defeat the burden of production through persuasion the record shows i take it that if you're working full time for the hospital that and let's see you can you can they can they will not hire someone who has p r and who has a full time job elsewhere is sam what the record shows it is not your honor there are circumstances where individuals can be both p r n and they can be they can have full time employment elsewhere that the specific situation which was testified to in this case was that the needs of the hospital at this time were for full time day time work i'm sorry p r n day time work and when when her schedule was nine to five during the day time she had to be pulled off so she gave notice that she was going to be working on june fourth that she needed full time work she was already scheduled to work on the sixth the seventh the eighth of the night the daytime chips we had to pull her off of those ships because she could no longer work them and then we needed to fill somebody that could then work the shift and so we needed somebody else to rea pply for those ships if ms haskins full time employment changed she could she was eligible for rehire it's also of note to this court that one of the comparatives that applied for the job mr holton she was terminated and is not of two points first of all we don't know what went on at the end of the it's obvious to me that she was not given the job at the interview because she was hired a month later the interview was in january she was hired temporary and the no we don't know when the notes were made own that interview sheet whether was made at the interview made at the time of the decision or or when it was made so we're talking about our application for a part time job m to say as we never discussed this and if you know you applied for a full time job why would you discuss a part time position why would you ask all these questions and getting back to the discovery only question of the of the interview sheets for the other two applicants mr washington said that you never followed up by asking for those in terms of any kind of motion to compel can you walk us through what happened on that i asked all the information on those two applicants and fact i asked all the information phone about three or four applicants record nurses who were working full time and that's all they gave me and there was no p why should act assume that that they did not give me all the forms they did not but they didn't provide them i asked the same thing i'm a part everybody including ms has an except i didn't ask for the entire personnel record but i asked for all the applications the the warnings the performance evaluations those kind of things so i should have been part of that the other thing is their own line application the way it works is once they apply you are notified when there's an opening so stassen has to be noted fashion is not just going through scrolling every time looking for a job that she's getting an email notification that so that's she would rather have a full time job with benefits yes she got a little bit wouldn't a little bit more money i think the p r him the p r and contract house for the payment in order to get people to work part time so that's why that happened but she would prefer a full time job there's nothing in the record to say that she was on day she at first until she left she works for radically we have the the attendant sheens and she works for radically until she got a full time job and then that last month she was asked to work the weekend and she out green that's what the text messages say she agreed and then that hour she later they said oh we got somebody else to cover it we don't need to thank you she she checks us the shift is scheduled for the next few weeks and discover she's not there so she calls my stuff that's not a supervisor and that's when she discovers she's been but it could have been twelve hours so she didn't have to work a fool twelve hours where your time is expired if you'd like to close with one or two sentences you may if there's anything else you want to say now right