ok just when the clock says three minutes you start well thank you your honor so to begin with i think it's important for michael can i and i'm sorry to interrupt right on the gate but i want to clarify thing for purposes of the argument i don't get the sense from your proofs that you're appealing your gender discrimination claim is that correct this is just about the racial discrimination well yes we  are in it's not apparent from the well you know the problem goes back to and this i'm going to address this this morning how we were simply prohibit it and  just not provided any discovery and we requested it over and over and see anything in your briefs here that really developed at all or below for that matter the question of gender arrestees in two thousand and six is when this to folks began his career as a sworn police officer and he served in that capacity for eight years up to the point in time which this incident which is the basis for the litigation and the appeal and we i want to make make it clear that mr folkie was a in my opinion a great employee a performance evaluations that were satisfactory and above in fact his last performance evaluation which spanned the period prior to him being suspended which cover the period of march of two thousand and thirteen to march of two thousand and fourteen he received a exceed expectation that this man go let me just cut to the chase here in order to show actionable discrimination  it's often the case and is seems to be the case here that you need to show that there were other people similarly situated who were treated better and i understand your point to mr but the district court thought that he really was not similarly situated he was a relative roky whatever you want to make of that preparatory time but he'd only formally been on the job for a few days and the powers that be in the chicago police department who reviewed this video and this incident with hot sick and the man in the parking lot thought that this was a very serious failure  to perform so they they ended his employment and i don't see where you show the discrimination you may think that it was a very harsh response for such a decorated man and somebody but but it's really not up to us to decide what punishments the chicago police department is doing our job is to make sure there's no discrimination so how do how do you show that there is racial or for that matter any other kind of discrimination happening here qualified comparable and the question to the answer to that question is yes there has then missed representations or maybe misunderstandings as to much more difficult situation than thought he who is in the rains and who leaves however faster or slower he walked i don't want to get into that but another difference is the actual situation that job he was working in that district for a few days he's been a sworn police officer for a long time so both of them were sworn officers they work for the same supervisor they were subject to the same rules and regulations housing had been a full sworn police officer for that one year and a half and at the time of this incident at the time as this event he was and was subject to the same rules and regulations as folk in fact but they have comparable in all material respects and had since that therefore it's been a sworn officer for you said as you said for a year and a half and your client had been on the job for quite some time and was experienced and even though had secured been a sworn officer probably a year and a half you only had a few a very short time of really the full responsibilities them i'm sorry they have to be directly comparable if in the relevant respects when you're right there could be some things that are sort of neither here nor there that are different that coleman for example says in the re use the court mr focused race discrimination claim fails because he cannot show than similarly situated officers receive better treatment likewise his retaliation can fails because the police or did not know about his complaint to the equal employment opportunity commission and moreover the timing of his just charge is not suspicious with respect to mr fogies motion to compel in that the court has any questions motion to compel ordinarily what i would expect in a case like this would be some showing that beyond this one incident where all we are looking at is two hard to avoid production and for well your honor mr fogies request in discovery was for information about similarly situated officers that was how he phrased the city objected that that request in those terms was bad and at that point it was for mr folkie to engage in discussion to reach an agreement about what kinds of attributes need officers similarly situated so  like maybe being accused of violating the same rule for same rule or perhaps even gauging in the same kind of misconduct which here was most prominently failing to assist one's partner but the fact that th subject to these kinds of different interpretations only understood that mr fogel at that point in this is well before discovery then did should have engaged in further discussion to reach an agreement about what similarly situated meant for purposes of discovery relies entirely on the comparison between himself and his former partner officer had sick but the differences between the two men are manifest officer has if needed mr folkies help arresting a man who had just finally attacked and when mr folkie however it's just by seeing officer hoods extract the on the ground to bring the offender under control slowly walked over and then when he eventually reached officer offered inadequate physical assistance to bring the offender under control when i asked her for him i take it when you say slowly walked over there are some back and forth in the proofs about this that there was video footage from the wal that would allow somebody kind of a scott versus harris sense to evaluate the speed of the now it's your fault he says that his former partner also committed misconduct that evening but officer hood six alleged shortcomings hill in comparison to what mr folkie did you know those are pretty commies where he didn't say in the was unfairly targeted for discipline this kind of compared or evidence could go to boast similarly situated and pretext but since the conduct in question was not comparable  this evidence is not useful to answer for on either score mr folkie also faults officer hood sick for not using certain control techniques on the offender that evening but here too any comparison between the m subdue the person what was what would what should he have run really did all of the above your honor when he saw officer hood sick have to perform the emergency takedown on certain techniques that were he was trained to use and the police board pointed out in its decision that he arguably failed to use those techniques that he was trying to do you have any past record so which is why i keep wondering precisely whether the police department regularly fires people who commit the failure to assist offense under the rules or whether this is something that happened only officer similar conduct but received a lesser punishment and he just doesn't have that evidence and that that's where we have this problem for it whether it's there or not we don't know but certainly not in this that's correct your honor employment opportunity commission but notice of that charge went to the city's corporation council and not the police work moreover the corporation counsel did not represent the board in mr folkies termination proceeding rather the corporation counsel represented the suit superintendent before the board so absent evidence that the police board actually knew about the e e o c charge the retaliation claim fails moreover mr folkie relies on the timing of his discharge in the century when he filed his ego see charge but that timing was not suspicious by the time mr folkie filed his charge the police board had already heard his case and then between when mr folkie filed the charge and when police board decided to fire him almost three months had passed and that amount of time is far too long to support an inference of retaliation and i see my time is almost up if there are no further questions the judgment of the district court should be different all right thank you anything further mr m ok thanks for that right my receipt that first of all congress and counsel for the city of chicago does represent the police board they are the lawyers for the police board in this impossible for them to have responded to the charge without speaking with the police believe that we will be establishing a not a good president to put out for so who is a year and a half on the force being an equal  when he's in terms of not being a good compared to when he is comparable on all four on everything else i just think is a dangerous and particularly in our vironment in this country today secondly discovery we didn't depose his supervisor  until until about three or four months after the discovery i'm not five months after discovery closed and that's a key witness and we we have not as we couldn't get the discovery to determine whether or not there are other  would be more on all four then mr harvey we were completely shut down we were shut down now how can you say i'm sorry you're going to have to the point is if we cannot get our discovery and the judge gave us an order at the last status conference to go back and conferred a wake up to narrow this down we still couldn't work it out