distinctions between a plaintiff in the proposed impaired comparatives are not so significant that they rendered comparison effectively useless the certainly situated requirement is satisfied further to be sufficiently somebody similarly situated imperator individual ordinarily should have dealt with the same supervisor been subject to the same standards and engaged in similar kind of comp suing seriousness in this case there is no dispute that the appellan the district court in its ruling for summary judgment by comparing levy and colby's conduct engaged in the fact finders role it was searched through or compare their conduct and investigatory interview he was removed immediately or moved even prior to chief marshal knowing what the allegations were against mr levy he immediately had his badge and gun removed from him and his arrest authority removed argue that your clients being asked to sit for that nd interview is it is an adverse employment consequence or constitutes an adverse  action can you spell that out for me a little bit i have a hard time seeing that i won't begin begin the beginning now says that it's important to recognize that mr levy or levy was subjected to an initial interview where he was read his miranda and weingarten rights therefore putting him at least in some what we would consider reasonable fear of criminal prosecution going forward from july st mind you some months or past and then in the position where he's filed an eagle claim and he's already been suspended or not suspended will placed on the day shift and had his officers credential and firearm removed he's been sitting there for several months and i believe will be would have played out unless important to the analysis whether it was a ever some point in action less important than whether or not it would have deterred being subject to the interview at all without constitutional protections would have deterred mr leading towards a woman who was interested into his care to drive her to her v a provided lodging she was there on a visit to her ailing father i don't think look uncertain and that the investigator was african american or anything else one sims professionalism well i agree with that but the point i'm making about it being an african american investigator is that mr levy is not challenging the motives not to discriminate against people and other people of their same group anyway can't go on i just i grieve with that and that's not the implication i wanted to make the point i'm making is that wasn't chief march that did the investigation of benjamin levy somebody else and somebody that no one is claiming was any way biased against mr levy and she conducted the investigation she interviewed him she interview their complaint directly to chief marsh you know she told him about her allegations about an incident that happened in the cafeteria jeev march heard her out and talked to her witnesses that she brought with him and then he undertook himself to investigate that and he went and interviewed jerry colby and he resolved that at to his satisfaction based on that investigation so mr hand i'm all the way troubled by the district court's determination one basis that they are not similarly situated here specifically the mr copius not similarly situated to mr levy because somehow the underlying harassment wasn't as offensive the the district court seems to kind of brushed off the allegations it and quite frankly the allegations against colby by this employee were that he make comments about her body parts and public key followed her around he stared at her he came to mention her all the tour she was terrified by it that's not insignificant so can you address my concern i'm troubled by this what appears to be a determination a fact that that's not a significant as the conduct that mr levy was accused of and therefore they can't be similarly situated because that sounds pretty significant to me well i think the one thing to keep in my as we talk about this and i will address the differences between the two cases but i think one thing to keep in mind when we talk about it is there's a mismatch between that mr levy's case and the relief he's seeking so he's not asking to have jerry cole be punished for his misconduct and he's not asking to troubling aspects of the conduct he has not admitted and i think what he is seeking is an even handed disciplinary process now of course if hines doesn't punish anybody for sexual harassment hynes better take another look at its policies but mr levy is making an argument for a quality which is after all what the statute guaranteed in your argument about the underlying contact may go to the question of damages but i think that's one for the church as well but my point is just that  next that he could have said something about her being excited that he took the wrong way now he only problem i have with that argument the whiskey there's there's no question he has admitted to some wrongdoing here there's no doubt about it i understand his argument to be fine but when you dispense with discipline you have to do so in a nondiscriminatory way and this other fella colby engaged in conduct that was as or more serious than i engaged in and he received no punishment i think that's his argument mr holloway can correct me but that's the way i interpret it a degree district court saying sitting for a nd interview is a minor inconvenience if that's all it was i would say ok so you've got to take a few hours off and sit for an interview but it's the overlay of the shadow of potential criminal prosecution protections even if it's just being able to assert your th amendment right it was it wasn't just taking hours so to go have an interview there was a very cool worse  overtone to that but my point is that the you got it right with respect to binge and leave and so this case is that the be a botched another investigation and so you know our objective here cannot going forward take action to effectively stop sexual harassment or that if they do their minimum have to risk a big jury verdict on the record here why isn't that an argument for the chief because the question here is go to the merits of the underlying conduct at issue well i know i read the district court opinion just tell me what you think they are why thanks for the discipline at the end mr levy refused to even had a direct order to come in and sit for an interview you know this was that is number one what's number two well that's enough of the distinction right there as far as the suspension goes that's a huge distinctions and i think there are differences in the conduct but i don't really think that is the the biggest par not as it were at the end here was i think on one of eight or nine or ten reasons that they gave for that ultimate suspension it wasn't the primary reason it wasn't the only reason for the suspension it was one of many reasons why i think it's a huge reason i don't see how the v a could possibly tolerate a police officer who is credibly accused of misconduct telling them that i'm not going to sit for an interview because i'm argument about the investigation and that's what i was starting to and to talk about you know chief marshal as they point out is somebody who credits this officer it's right and that's what we're looking to get inside chief marches hit right and so he's somebody his mindset same and not just for me based on his race because of the crime and with respect to the allegations or mr hill's whether the government's argument regarding  counsel of the court will take the case under di's then and we will be in recess