proceedings are the c e o and the board members so we're not dealing with a situation where we have for example a laborer on the manufacturing floor a supervisor these are sophisticated folks that we're not going to find things like open statements of discrimination we're going to find things that are under the radar typically and this is exactly why the law sets forth the kind of procedure  that we have in the donald douglass and precisely why circumstantial evidence is just as valuable as direct evidence and in determining whether or not there's sufficient evidence to get to a jury which is why why we're here today that the fact that he was that there is anything going on here besides corporate politics which has nothing to do with race with even a i don't know if there's any mixed moti reorganize was made that that indicates that he was the one individually that was being affected is his african american a racist is important because he as an african american is treated differently from his peers who are caucasian there is no evidence that there were other racial minorities or people of color in the relevant groups there who were treated also favorably like the  but that's this is actually where it starts is that when jim sharpe became c e o and that was in september of two thousand and one he comes in and at that particular point in time mr cornwell is the chief operating officer what happens immediately is that mr sharp starts dealing with all the caucasian peers but he doesn't go to the one person that would make the most  two thousand and one so we have september october november and december they ask the period where mr cornwell testified that he was excluded from regular meetings with mr starr he didn't attend what doesn't what doesn't square right in the sequence with with their explanation always the ends and we go through the sequence the first of all for the first few months as the supposedly the very we're mr cornwell would be the one consultation about how to shift off this portion supporting portion of mister cornwell's duties on the somebody else he's the one that would would seem most logical to go to and say ok and then do this i know you're not happy about it that this court can make the decision although if if it wanted to the district court to go back and and deal with the factual analysis of us specifically under cost i think that would be inappropriate resolution as well i think we have we have and then there's a rush determination there's no reason terminate the ministry of leave was going on a status that there was a rush to take him out the door all of those things together the ignore the board's ignoring the not going to second guess his motives we're not going to look into what lives might have existed meaning we're not going to look into whether race played a factor that the board just stepped out and washed hands of those complaints about race discrimination didn't do anything that circumstantial evidence case was presented but after cost i'm not sure that the district court could require that in other words it seems to me the only issue was whether under liberty first i believe a close reading of cost when they measure direct evidence for circumstantial evidence is talking about how that would be portrayed to a jury at the trial stage so therefore a jury should not be instructed relatively small group of upper management right correct he's been there eight or nine or you know some significant period of time correct performed his job so far as the record shows with without shift executives around ok i know that happens although i represented corporations for a few decades but what seems odd is that mr sharp would not consult with mr plaintiff must meet one percent circumstantial evidence i do not believe that any level of circumstantial evidence where you can draw any potential inference or matter how far stretched would be enough to send it to a jury i think there's got to be a line drawn somewhere  seemed like the company did not even evaluate the issue that he raised but his questions in other words when he spoke to the director is that something like you know i don't know he doesn't like the color of my skin or you'd rather have a woman or you know whatever or doesn't like me personally those issues when the company reported there were no the address i guess you know probably behavior or inappropriate her sexual harassment behavior at a cocktail party may have addressed another issue but they didn't address he may there is one line in there where they do talk about a permissive response to a racial discrimination allegations could be evidence of pretext but in that case it reached much much further and in fact the cases cited by plaintiffs all of which demonstrate level of prete hundred ninety eight case where the company was projected somebody when she asked why they rejected her she said well we were looking for somebody with creativity that was the key reason why we didn't hire you and yet that was no where in any of the hiring the trails in terms of the standards why they hired somebody and she in fact had much better evaluations course of the person they ended up hiring also the shmendrik case where there was somebody was told a plane it was actually told the resort are in use because we want did the plaintiffs diligently pursue discovery opportunities that's the reason why church king went to further it just so we said you know there's no way that it was diligently pursued but secondly even if there was an open question about that the second level is then would have riskier there was a statement made we don't know when it whether it was for after the terminations and it certainly wasn't regarding the plaintiff it certainly wasn't at all tied to the terminations decision for those reasons we think even if that evidence were in a play in this case it wouldn't be direct evidence and it you know if it's a woman well why shouldn't the director then investigate that again the record shows that he did raise it in the form of i don't know why he's doing this to me could it investigate as far as that is for as i can tell from the record the board did not investigate the color of my skin issue you're right you know you're saying they didn't have to because it was phrased as a question even i see my read last time this did not even come up obviously before the demotion issue so first of all this evidence only goes to the retaliation issue and if i had more time i would be happy to explain why i