terrific i think it's much better than just telephonic conference which we did throughout the spring there are some risks that people get a lot of trauma if that is the case try to get right back on we'll wait for you if after result air time we can't seem to connect with you then we are likely to move on to the next argument and then we will resume once everybody's back after the completion of the argument that we took  so don't panic if you having difficulty that we are technical people who are crackers can get you back all right we didn't have any problems yesterday when i did this so i think we should be ok just keep that i'm all right so  rossi confirmed that the wine crew those individuals that mr palekar was supervising located the pleadings on the internet and passed those documents around it was not being used to a system but really in a derogatory joking matter ten where he was made a supervisor of the same individuals that were harassing him and he was working with the same individuals as well my crew believe that that promotion it was a result of the settlement that he communication with subordinates although it did mention some alleged inappropriate comments with our management it was revised in the final version was used subsequently to terminate mr pelan car there's multiple references to his  could you just i mean you said he was still there scott wiggins right but i mean i just to go back to german soldiers question the evidence of discriminatory animus whether she was there or not is not very helpful did he do were both supervised by the same person arguably the same complaints were made against both but missed now he was not terminated because according to lower court he took responsibility in your court found that this to whether you took responsibility this is the speed of an issue fact as to whether or not he took responsibility but also whether or not determination itself was a legitimate nondiscriminatory not a tell it's a reason is a pound per perform well i think we superior to many of his colleagues the issue here and the term a nation itself just really references to him as communication skills which he was never given training for which  acknowledged but he never actually had any follow up and i never actually really assisted him in bettering his communications skills i understand my time is up and there's no question could i quickly ask you a question about your notice of appeal rule three requires that you designate what you're appealing from and it looks like you just didn't fill in the form here and that and that was what was on yeah there's a form that in the form of it gives us some options what you know to specify what it is you're feeling from it looks like you just missed that and there's nothing specified there complained about mr palin car's performance in january twenty four team management attempted to address those deficiencies with mr palin car and his own documented evidence shows he resisted every effort of management to address those behaviors and after a year later the line cruel letter was tendered to management and that letter was signed by every single person that mr palen car was charged with supervised and that letter led to the investigation by employer relations which every member of that line crew was then interviewed and d then every person who managed mr palen car was crew work how to do it this was whether he could manage people and manifestly every piece of evidence collected in that investigation showed mr town car cannot manage people i do to remark one d point raised by opposing counsel in his argument which is he says the supervisors involved with the same as those involved in two thousand and eight that is incorrect and what did happen in two thousand and eight is reinvestigated and there's a lengthy report in the record of the two thousand and eight investigation of those comments there is no evidence that those comments continue after those efforts by not by the record shows that  if i hear aslam and that stuff mr pellew car was not hesitant during the time he was a supervisor to send e mails to his managers not once did he ever say the line crew has made such remarks not this complaint in this action not in his declaration in opposition to this motion so those remarks were addressed by and i put in twenty million seventy two thousand and eight they stopped but the managers who were is that when mr pellew car was counseled by his managers mr senior and mr toya that he needed to change the way he managed the line crew he resisted them at every turn and he resisted doing that them and every turn in emails he wrote to them that are in the record which show that he considered any effort to address his met your real deficiencies to be a vicious attack those are the words he said in the emails to his managers when they said we need to address this behavior night but address that behavior st by reassigning responsibilities between the two transmission supervisors in marci new york mr connor completely rejected that effort and then he was put back into full d responsibility in twenty million eighty two thousand and fourteen that led to the light cruz letter in which every member of the line crew sign saying we cannot work for this man and there is no evidence in the record of discrimination of this so once knifer came forward with that evidence of no one can work for him and no one can mention and then independent people from employee relations of ny but investigated by interviewing everyone and recommended that he be deterred terminated we came forward with that evidence then the burden shifts again to remove him there is no evidence that the union asked that he be removed and more importantly and what judge heard noted is that when mr nataly was confronted with issues in his performance except on responsibility for the deficiencies and agreed to work on them and improved and this was a direct contrast to mr pelan car and the record is replete with when mr pellew car was confronted with you're not managing the crew properly he said i'm not broken they are he said there is nothing wrong to fix and he said your criticism of my managerial skills is a vicious attack and you know this may or may not be valid differentiations but i guess my question is isn't that a question why isn't that a question for the jury yes no reasonable juror could find that mr mittal his conduct was comparable mr allen carr's no reasonable juror could find that nika needed to continue in his position a person who everyone who worked for him said i can't work for him and everyone who managed him said i can't manage him and that's not in and cruz dissatisfaction that in no way shows pretext because what all the evidence shows is that this investigation was triggered by the lying cruel letter and by mr refusal to work with night management and example of mr allen carr's conduct that is in no way such as the behavior of mr natale is mr wiggins was working in western new york on a project and he put in for sick time to go to his doctor in western new york and mr palen car refused a request to leave the project in western new york to go to his doctor in western new york and said no st you have to drive from western new york back to marci before you can go to your medical appointment and marcy new york when that was brought to the attention of the union when that was brought to the attention of mr pal cars added every person worked for him and there's no evidence that any other supervisor eliminated every person work for him your honor at least people these line crew members do extremely difficult work working at heights nearly near electrified wires they need to work as a team and what the team came forward with in those interviews is that we can work as a team when we're being birddog micromanaged and hyper criticized by our manager and we don't feel safe and there's no evidence that any other line crew came to management said we don't feel safe and so that to go forward and to conduct this investigation and acted properly based on the luminous investigation of the allegations of the line crew members that we cannot work for this man and b three actually says the comparison between the two was and then found distinctions we pronounce to with mr nataly took responsibility but the allegations against mrs holly stump for twenty five and six years and had to do with feel a fear for workplace is employees were concerned that retaliation misappropriation of government equipment and porosity real issue here is really the opinion there's twelve depositions are were done it's a very full moon this record low court's reasoning shifts at various points at some points finds that there was pretext says that it was not insubstantial references that was treated differently with regard to the investigation that was done against him on the meal and vehicle policies and then shifts and says well the pretax evidence is paltry and insufficient when the court below found there to be thank you both very well are you we will reserve decision