here if i think you did so before you got to the heart of the matter i wanted to ask you about our jurisdiction because on page three of your statement of the case you indicate that this appeal is from the grant of summary judgment on the claims of four people williams paris jackson and then there are the claims of a bunch of other people that remain pending in the district court in pt for trial beginning on a certain date gathers been changed but that certainly makes it sound to me like there is no final judgment and i look to see if there was a rule fifty four b certification and i didn't find one although that may not be the last word that can you please tell me what's happening are there other people who are part of this litigation these claims are not yet resolved there are other people and part of this litigation th claims are not involved there was fifteen regional plaintiffs all of them brought suit in their own individual capacity there was no class action but all part of this case and so well part of this what has me concerned is that the all parties and if some parties claims have been finally resolved the rule rule fifty four b provides a mechanism to go to the district court and see if the district court will certify that there is no just reason for delay in that finalists appellate practice it was fifty four b creates an exception i to look for a rule fifty four b order there appears to be no do you agree with that that is true then this is just opening shot no to order a limited remain and to the district court if the district court were so inclined to issue a rule fifty four b then this panel would be able to take the case or whether we should just people who worked as these combo drivers who had very similar complaints about the business practices the alleged business practices of why are c bolingbroke terminal it strikes me there could be some efficiencies in taking the appeal once everybody's claims are resolved things might come to light maybe not i mean the district court might think that there are enough differences between these four people and the others who are going to have a trial i can't say that but the motivation of the rules efficiency and why did i think a ruling by this court may give us a lot of appeals because of the normal preference for resolving things all in one package i mean i'm willing to let you say a word or two about the of your appeal but i my main question was whether there was a fifty four b order and since there isn't i just want you to be aware that that's a big problem in the yard and i think the question that will go on throughout this is what is an adverse employment action and middle of there is no money difference here but there are ten double job benefits in the contract says hey he's wrong combo drivers you have to have a c d o your will have exactly the same job description but the contract says in march of every single year you're to bid on your job assignments and start times for the wire so says we don't do that here there's no explanation for why they do they have to follow this rule they could not have discriminated against my client because there's a valid seniority system in place her suit what happens is that the way they by doing this and by making this line from the get build you're allowed to send the drivers wherever they want and they send all the black drivers to the city more lessness and all the white ever since others why does it matter because of the city routes are much harder physically more if you're trying about seniority rights and your brief says they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement they are teamsters local one seventy nine the only way collective bargaining rights can be enforced in court is through hybrid agreement the duty of fair representation litigate and we don't have the union as a defendant here so the entire suit if this is an attempt to enforce the seniority clause goes no or no you are it goes the only thing you can that i don't think this court would have any problem saying that scrimmage but there's no adverse employment action there there's absolutely no what does it matter if the of white guys going to walk fiber free or black guys got to walk sparse on factual support for the arguments that you're making it's you know it's very hard to track through those citations  to the actual record who are the comparables what's the real difference are all of these routes the same in the clearly driving routes in the city was part of the business of this company that these folks work for somebody who didn't have to drive in the city most of the factual basis was put in the fifty six point one honor it's as fundamental in this case that when you say you assign jobs on the basis of race there's a harm there whether or not it's in the wallet but it's in the dignity of every man or such a claim you have to provide enough factual background to make it plausible that this offends i don't disagree with you that assigning on the basis of race is prevented by all sorts of things title seven included  hundred eighty one other law but it's it's necessary to do something other than just say i say you're doing this and  honor that's correct the parties to consent to the magistrate to just just judge which i don't find that it's one thing to invite an appeal and quite another thing to specify that at the time and it is i gather  it's my impression that the trial for the remaining people has now been pushed back a bit it was supposed to be june and now it's later is that correct that is correct around or potentially september or later ok so i mean that's up for ever but it's quite a bit of time and surely there are some common questions are are the allegations materially different for those whose cases are going to trial but from our perspective as the police they are in fact we did move the court bifurcate or separate the individual claims and cases the magistrate judge denied that motion but it is our position they don't these are individual claims that each each plaintiff below must prove themselves this is not a there need to be some common issues before you're going to group people together such as what the company's policy was for assignments or the factory if they took into account who the responsible manager might have been for assignments or how complaints lined up getting process i can think of a lot of things it would not vary from person to person yes or no and that is what the court ultimately concluded in denying our motion that there is sufficient overlap with regard to the parties  management at the same facility at cetera so i think for both overlap and proficiency purposes the court decided to maintain it as a single action multiple plaintiffs but it is my my belief than my clients  these are individual lies claims but with regard to the fifty four pieces of the cation the court is correct there wasn't sort of the cation in right of certification it's a judgment right a certification would refer to something like twelve ninety two b and there be no basis for a twelve ninety two b certification after claims with respect to particular parties have already been resolved since its foundation is law you are welcome say a word or two about the merits but as i warned your opponent i think the jurisdictional issues are going to come first in our concern all right i'll just briefly address  fact in their eyes you know anyway for is one thing i know you argue that it wasn't that hard to figure out from their brief what they were trying to argue whether they supported it properly whether you know it at the next level there's a case looking at not only the pleadings but looking at our statement of facts their responses the record i did a fine job of putting together the arguments that were actually in the briefing itself and based on that the court ap found that the three of the four had not suffered an adverse employment action specifically with regard to the route assignments because as you noted these are legitimate relics that are part of the business and people who are not arguing are you that  that you can assign any route on the basis of race of course not your honor you certainly cannot do that right but what what the plaintiff failed to demonstrate here was that one linking the route to race and then to identifying how how the specific route was an adverse employment action and as you noted these are legitimate routes within the job description and they were unable to identify or present any evidence demonstrating these routes were somehow  different they summarily testified stated that they found that some of the routes were more dangerous or that they were more like because accidents but they had no evidence to support individual for whom the court found had fulfilled that adverse employment action although we dispute that because an action by a criminal conduct by third party i don't believe can constitute an adverse employment action the legitimate business response on the pretext so with regard to the three there was no adverse employment action with reality because of the being held up at gunpoint by an adverse employment action in that one scenario were there any statistics about incidents in the suburban towns there were no statistics whatsoever presented on summary judgment around the case at all and i'll just note for the record i know it's in a briefing but what the opponents refer to as a city routes aren't actually congestion difficulty such as that and he tried to portray it as if somehow midway neighborhood is different from any other neighborhood within the area but chip point they didn't present any statistics or evidence demonstrating any one neighborhood is more difficult to drive in or more hostile or higher crime rates nothing of that realises only one who actually suffered any kind of adverse action in the form of being held at gunpoint one time and that's why the court went to the next step than else which is do we have a legitimate business reason for signing rocks in a court found yes and there are a number of factors they looked at including the hours hours each individual ploy has left on their shift and you have to sign a right based on that the start time of the shift and then the volume of freight each customer needs efficiency and the court found that this was a legitimate explanation as to how routes were put together in as honor it was not plead it was not alleged it was raised an argument for the first time on some adjustment and that's why if you noted on my true belief that is a waiver issue it's not an issue for the court here chad that's that's different if they're not for the questions green was a dangerous place to be you can look at it outside in a neighborhood in chicago and decide whether or not just how much you know you see how many bars are in windows or how many wooden planks or how many nice stores and lawns and nice houses you don't after am a ph d or statistic to tell whether something's dangerous or neighborhoods dangerous we all know what neighborhoods we don't need to be driving  clients did this suburb riots from time to time when white drivers were sick so they know the difference and when you get seniority as you go on so you have to use these routes that are more dangerous  harder to do and to back into because they're narrow streets and all that they are physically more dangerous because people around when you get older you don't want to do those things so when he got a good security number and you get to be fifty five years old like myself you have to do the back breaking work your honor all black hispanic drivers went downtown not one there's any drivers approximate any given time it wires all of the white drivers none of them routinely went downtown every single black and hispanic driver had the city routes now something they call you know melrose park and some couple other names stately radio to tell and it up on the west side of chicago which a lot of those areas are a little more than fairly white driver who literally throws the assignment back in the dispatchers face says i don't go here i'm not taking this blank i don't do that she gives it to margaret or to mr harris