others used their positions afterward in these offices the human human resources offices and the label related to create a predominantly black workforce board in har a legend that they were discriminated against after they took the test because they never got to take the test and that's clear from them saying i applied i was turned down i never heard from them again never got past that st stage we've elaborated on that in the complaint with additional allegations but it's in char they added sexual harassment or retaliation in the complaint or cases where different dates and times and individuals involved in the discrimination are lighter so for by different supervisors those are not substantially related according to the decisions in this case we're talking about the same people we're talking about the same type of discrimination we're talking about the same  same hiring to look at we have the same job the line with the position of support we have the same allegation of discrimination against hispanics qualified applicants we have the same allegations throughout all of the charges and the complaint that they were engaged in systemic disparate treatment and had a practice or to make disparate impact discrimination and all of the delegation if you look at them in the getting the correct stimulator you know li to be clear that this report hung up pretty much on this one specific fact but that's not the claim the claim isn't pre employment testing was discriminatory the claim is hiring by ford at this facility was discriminatory and one of the ways in which it was means they never had a chance to test six of the seven but one did and that's that's some of the confusion here is that the individuals had varying differences with how the application process played out with them individually but the afterward when they fought and by the way true one person said specifically she took the test but given the allegation by agreement they take the tests given the reference to the test results given the reference to what happens after the attack given the reference to non hispanics not taking the test a reasonable person reading this wouldn't conclude that the other six were complaining that they never took the test so that was what was before  and then they came to court and told a radically and disturbing story about a supposed to receive that actually didn't involve the test results or something after the test but also supposedly took place at this unemployment office total to notice now this supposed conspiracy involving an hourly employee who's an elected union official and supposed people at the unemployment see that's serious stuff rely on it they cited three different times in their complaint this falsifying documents about a supposed conspiracy back to back the plan let me talk a little bit more about that plant our i'm sorry the unemployment office because it's important you have to get through that office to take the test and what they're saying in paragraph thirty three is the office is what prevents you from moving forward they say that it get in paragraph fourteen they say that a good pair of paragraphs forty dollars even supposing that the norms make their way to for what happens for it finds a way to prevent them from being forwarded for so most of the complaint is about what happens at the unemployment office which doesn't administer the test and it means it happened before things left the building and had the opportunity for testing and when they finally get to making some allegation about ford motor company itself what they're saying there is that for different story in federal court and certainly it doesn't need to be identical it doesn't need to be the same but there doesn't need to be a reasonable relationship any contradiction such a conflict  conduct age discrimination but before the e e o c the plaintiffs that the problem is the collective bargaining agreement was unfairly applied and then in federal court the plaintiffs said well against it so we can decide how to handle this if i'm for it and i get charge saying hispanics are allowed to take the test they largely don't pass even when they passed there are discriminated against and non hispanics don't have to  federal court about this you know only fanciful unsupported conspiracy involving the union pressure which they were told anything about they've been told that you would a view a case like that differently and so what's next well with all respect it really just report you because because they brought a completely different story about this supposed conspiracy in the federal district court which they didn't either because now supposedly it's people at the unemployment office through a material so i think when you apply the standard articulated in chief but again the miller case is then they say not to take the test if i could talk so i could summarize it this way reasonable relationship means that at minimum there can't be none of them said i was not allowed to take the test before the e e o c and then finally with their complaint i that they should be given me and it's too late to raise that in this court they never properly sought legal man  they filed a rule fifty nine rule sixty motion but they did not end their complaint with that notion and they rely on two cases for roller case and the foster case in both of those what the rule fifty nine will sixty motion worker i never received any further information about potential employment at ford from fort or the harvey unemployment office further down mr milliners agreement with the harvey in the last paragraph complaining is aware of several other hispanic individuals who have been hired through the harvey unemployment office so even though it's accurate that they also discussed the situation it's very clear and ford could not have been there's no way that ford can read this chart and say themselves the only issue here is this is someone who clearly never went for testing and it's an allegation that discrimination is taking place in connection with you know in the way on employment for these individuals will have to struggle with what the dates are that discrimination is whether  it's between the nature between the charge of the complaint whether it's the same is that level of obstruction you talk about i understand your honor and i think if you take a look at the exhibit that i prepared tracks are required refill but i think if you take a look at that exhibit i've outlined every allegation that relates to an act of discrimination in this case it appears in both the complaint and the charge so there is certainly no in and i think that's obvious from i never received any further information after i filled out a preoccupation questionnaire and then go further down in the chart when it said the agreement between m that process and he controlled that process as an employee and for now obviously we haven't been given an opportunity to take discovery in this case and discovery will tell us exactly what the details of that original work i would like to just quickly know our view when we asked him to reconsider the accident to reverse his earlier judge it hadn't done that we would have had an opportunity to amend the complaint we did reference in the end of our brief in response to a motion