lower courts determination to dismiss on summary judgment her eighty a a p a age discrimination claim we believe that in assessing the facts that were due to discovery and applying the summary judgment standard that the court overstepped in reaching determinations on the facts that were put before the court in a light that was not most favorable to the plaintiffs as should have been the court in its summary judgment determination found and the stablish we believe correctly established that the plaintiff sufficiently established a prime efficient case on her age discrimination claim and that she established that your son subjected to an adverse employment action and that if there were facts upon which an inference could be reached that age the but for her actions would not have been taken where we think the court were spectrally what facts you think the court overlooked and had to accept as favorable to his jan that we should be persuaded short gives her the right for two a trial shore so the adverse action related to  did she did submit that request for leave for mounting it's in dispute that she dismissed it with the issue at play was that they wanted her to indicate that on the two dates in question she was sick and and and and the of this took a personal day she advised them that i  can't do that i believe that would be falsifying the document because the reality of the circumstance was there were issues with her schedule for that semester she did not believe and was not aware at that time that she was scheduled to teach the two classes in question so she wasn't at the school simply because she didn't know she needed to be at school for those courses so you know it was couched as though she was being insubordinate when in fact she was being asked to do something that i can imagine is is a is an acceptable process or policy for the for the college in that they're asking her to submit a document a document that in accurately reflects what her leave was so this one factor that you can establish pretext is that the employer the defendant is engaging in conduct contrary to normal policy and procedure in this case there were two mm ways in which they did that from my perspective number one they're asking or submit a leaf form that they know to be not accurate  and for hardest for her to sign off on on leave saying that she was sick on a day that she they know and she know she was not that she was took a personal the day they know and you know she did not and again in these kids you look at the totality of the circumstances this was not a circumstance and situation where there were not previous issues between her and her supervisor so trust is not is at a premium here so for her to be getting told by her supervisor hey falsify that document and submit that to me understandably she she's hesitant and she's not she's not willing to do that because she's not sure what they're going to then do next if she does do that so on top of that she had a prior agreement that the thirty day suspension would be implemented only by certain individuals in this case it wasn't implemented by that individual so our argument is that there was a there's a deviation from those policies and procedures that would indicate oh could indicate to reason of fact finder that the legitimate business reasons here were pretext but the most compelling and most important fact i believe indicates that there why are questions of fact as to whether there was pretext are the statements by her supervisor mr bre who made statements reflecting that she'd been there for thirty years she'd been there a long time that mean maybe she should retire to her on multiple occasions there was evidence that previously when they sought to discipline her that he was pushing for her termination and even when he was told that that might be a bit of a stretch he would say well i know but hopefully that'll force or and push her to retire so they were on top of the irregularities in terms of what they were asking her to do how they handled her suspension there was evidence of a discriminatory animus based on age and from our perspective with with all due respect to lower court we believe there was enough evidence that was a deuce through discovery and presented to the court on summary judgment that at that point the court should have a properly identified there is an issue as to intent which is what most of these employment cases ultimately come down to and that that is an issue ultimately for a jury to decide one way or another whether they believe that the that age was a motivation for some of these things that were done or not and so from that for that reason and i know i have so much time but i don't think i have anything further on this as any question but for that reason we believe that the decision to grant summary judgment as it relates to the a county attorney representing the pelleas suffolk county community college and the county of suffolk good morning morning is respectfully submitted that the court below got it right so could you turn then to mr ricardo's last point essentially that there was some evidence of discriminatory animus based on age and say tell us why that why it should go back on that issue appellate brief he's sought sees parsed out some of what professor breeden stated when she when he mentioned that maybe you should retire been here so long she's been employed by the college and is still asically that statement i'll refer you to actually three ninety two in the appendix where the channel omits the words completely miserable loan since the first day i was hired as an adjunct over thirty years ago very said which appeared after she has been here over forty years so he appellant has taken out those words and it's taken it out of context ok  and really the case is about chance and ability to to follow the rules of the college and that ultimately led to that prior two thousand and ten disciplinary proceeding and then that resulted in the two thousand and ten stipulation whereby she were agreed to comply with the rules regulations of the college and then in january two thousand and twelve almost well you know well over a year later she again did not comply with the rules regulations as show up for work she didn't read this was the first week of that spring two thousand and twelve semester she knew the evidence showed  shows and then i'll refer your attention to an e mail sent by the union president ms mouth who which confirmed that ms chen was aware that she was assigned to those labs which were on january twenty fourth generate twenty six regardless she did not appear did not contact anybody at the college and after that pursu the rules and regulations of the college and the union contract she was supposed to submit the early report online by the fall the but the eighth day of the following month which would have been february eighth she did not do so  the record indicates several communications between professor breeden and professor chen as well as actually mr tempeh or the vice president in personnel of the  college giving her telling her that she needed to submit the leave report and to also that that the count the college would allow her to take a personal day in a sick day even though she's never given any reason whatsoever for those two missed laps and gave his substance your response to what mr ricardo characterized in his argument as the college forcing her to him to write down something that was not true it's something you if you submit a leaf report and you miss time you have to designate a reason a reason and a day and i think that was the the college acted reasonably and they gave her until february twenty ninth to submit the leave report she refused to do so they did not choose to take any action against her until march first they gave basically the college bent over backwards for disciplinary proceedings procedures which is the first offense thirty days in offense sixty days fence would be terminations but really talk about the first offense and the thirty day suspension she's still employed by the college  and really when you look at the actions of the college they they had there was a reasonable basis to conclude that the college made a good faith business determination that she had violated the two thousand and ten stipulation and therefore proceed with the thirty day suspension and we're sorry just i was trying to remind myself when was when did this occur when did these events occur the events as far as leading to the suspension you know that ok to bring you all here but what would the underlying events at the college and her t the third week third or fourth week in january two thousand and twelve thank you ok that the first two dates of this that that professor chang was scheduled to teach was the twenty fourth then the twenty six and they were chemistry all right but it was twenty twelfth two thousand and twelve right so six years ago yes ok the other point i want to address it is as far as what mr mercado has mentioned about procedural regularities refer to the court refer the court to the petrovich petrovich case which as indicated on page twenty my brief where the the fact that there may have been some procedural irregularities without more is insufficient to raise a tribal issue a fact of discrimination also irregularities that mr ricardo has pointed to include the fact that with the purported fact that the college president took no had no involvement in the suspension think it would be a fair conclusion to reach that he was authorized to to act in accordance with that stipulation on behalf of the college and therefore i was would submit that this is also that case was also an asian female professor who claimed that she was discriminated against as a result of her gender and her national  n i just say in that case the college determines that her that she engaged in misconduct with respect to her colleagues as well as is to a student likewise i would submit that the college here  determined that professor chen engaged in misconduct in violation of the two thousand and ten stipulation and would submit that the this court or from the judgment below i have one quick question  with respect to a union contract she did have rights and the union chose not to file any grievance with respect to this is pension thank you thank drama's mr ricardo you've reserved three minutes three minutes right here but just a couple of points i would want to i want to address so with respect to the agreement that it was alleged that my client breached that and that justified the thirty day suspension relates to her missing those allegedly missing those two courses so she wasn't suspended because she missed those they didn't pursue a suspension because of that the suspension was sought because she did not sign that the according to them properly fill out the leave request form so i think in some into some degree that is aren't those aren't those two tied together i mean it is it it seems to me it's totally factual for as of tuesday that the dates were the january twenty fourth the other twelve twenty fifth and twenty six so as of tuesday the twenty fourth she had sent an e mail saying if the school wants me to handle those two morning labs on tuesday and thursday i would be open to that she then doesn't receive any call confirmation any way shape or form until the afternoon of wednesday at which point she had left the campus which again there's no evidence to indicate she didn't have any courses she didn't have any reason that  need to be at the campus so there's there's no evidence to suggest that it was an inappropriate that she was know that she didn't that she wasn't at the campus she then returned to the campus thursday morning saw the e mail and at that point found out that they had said yes we're going to assign you to those to those who left so from her perspective as she conveyed to them i did not know you were out wanted me to be at either of these labs i don't agree that i in any way in ten certainly not intentionally missed courses that i was supposed to be covering and she subsequently had a conversation with her supervisor wherein he said i'm not going to suspend you for missing those three days but i will suspend you if you miss further date she never missed another day so it's i think not in dispute that the suspension had nothing to do with the fact that the actual fact she missed those days but ultimately was brought because she did not fill out the leave request form as they wanted her to do and again for the reasons outlined i won't revisit them she had a history with them that led her to feel it was not a prudent decision for me to falsify a form that i'm submitting in terms of why i was not present when i have conveyed to them and they know my position i wasn't there because i didn't think my schedule was set in that i was supposed to cover those days yet other than that i think a lot of what i would say is sort of rehashing what i said before so i will leave it at that and i thank you for your time thank you