involving mrs wilson who at the time at the age of fifty nine years old d apply for a position of the supervisory financial management specialist at the department of homeland security she had served as a bank card manager also at the department of homeland security two years prior to the time that she had applied and she had been bankcard manager for six years between two thousand and six up into two thousand and twelve in which time she received outstanding performance evaluations from four different supervisors after returning in twenty four teams you apply for the job which was one notch above the job that she had previously hailed during the selection process a resume was not forwarded it to the next level which would have been a whole which representations and in the brief that you filed in the state me just made about her resume not being reviewed by the panel has joined the st one you say throughout your brief including on page eleven that with if you could bear with me then mr ward and thanks to judge millette could you tell me check out bad declaration that starts at j two hundred and thirty seven i don't read it to say one way or another whether mr burris reviewed the resumes can you tell me where you think that it does say that she did not review the resumes yeah there was one particular statement i read it was number seventeen was she says  well i it doesn't it doesn't prove the point because it's simply saying that mrs morgan moden stated that mrs berlusconi is present at the meetings but when you re morgan interview the resumes you're contradicting the testimony of ms morgan louden correct absolutely you work ok so you also say the regulation required that burris participate in writing questions you say that i'm it's thirty one of your grief can you tell me where in the regulation it says that she was required to participate in writing the questions  from the standpoint that if you were a manager working at a large corporation or a large agency and you familiar were regulations three hundred and thirty five as well as the whole body of supreme court precedent which requires that individuals should be treated equally and also i mean mr ward i'm asking specifically what text in the regulation it requires participation of a minority panel member when when  writing interview questions it may be great policy i'm not disagreeing with that i'm just saying and where specifically in the regulation does it say what you say the regulation says ok there is a diploma home security re more if i may use a minute this is on page ten of your brief as well as page eleven and then again on twenty six and thirty eight and then four times in your reply you say ms morgan loud and quote withheld wilson's resume  where in the record is that cycle to repeat the yana where you say that ms morgan louden withheld wilson's resume where in the red where in the record does it say where she indicated that she had she admitted that she had with hill the resume for the reasons that she did not feel as if it represented the type of leadership and projects that she sought she and mister saw so you don't mean that she withheld the resume from ms burris or withdrew the resume from those that would be reviewed by others you just mean she didn't think that the erred when it found the selectee significantly better qualified for the job than the appellant the district court actually said that the burden is on you and you and this is from j three ten wilson cannot establish that she was significantly better qualified for the job and taylor if you agree that you're flipping the bird and there i believe that the burden is on i think i'm sorry to be the question ya you say that in your brief that the district court erred when it found that the selectee in this case was mr taylor was significantly better qualified for the job but right of the district court actually simply found that you did not meet your burden to establish that ms wilson was significantly better qualified than mr taylor which brings me to the point which is the that's not my question do you think the district court got a standard wrong when it said wilson failed to establish the standard being on wealth and that she was significantly better qualified for the job taylor i know you don't agree with  check you know i'm just asking do you do you think the district court got a legal standard wrong when the district court said it was your job to establish that wilson was significantly better qualified than taylor no i mean with that not some courts have said that grossly inaccurate statements in an appellate brief subject an attorney to will thirty eight sanctions and i wonder why you don't think that six statements that i've gone through are not grossly inaccurate i don't think that they're grossly inaccurate because i think with whip it for example you take the issue of whether pearl's affidavit shows that she did not have an opportunity to pose dissipate i think that that it is accurate and i think that there at the that she did not and i think that that affidavit shows enough in the context of the morgan lowden deposition which in which she states that she was not sure whether report saying that the performance of the bank card officers in the department of homeland security at problems significant problems issues whether they were related to my client and i think i set forth in my brief very specific we that it did not have anything whatsoever to do with my client in kalak come forward with any evidence that any of those problems were related to matters within this wilson's control w specified in my brief that we actually lead a response to part of the inspector general report to fix no no they did not mean our she did she did i thought she let a response maybe it was a different story had a response to that is our yes she did yes she was finally she indicated that she was in a policy part of the department of homeland security and the issue that arose there was related to a lower level practical problem and ultimately she was as to the system that was solved in a practical problem and as a result of help when there was all the practical problems she received the highest performance evaluation from her supervisor who also supervised to select the robert taylor who got the job and his opinion as i pointed out in my brief was that he or she was significantly better qualified for the position in this particular wars and he would have known because he filled the position mr taylor he would have known because mr tatum of the position that he head after he left job announcement in this case and didn't speak to who was substantially more qualified for the position at issue and he didn't even know well given let me let me but given given his very surprised to learn about the inference that the same thing so it's irrational for a jury to read his very surprised to learn that taylor got the position given his experience working with both of them in the accolades he showered on miss wilson his lengthy experience with her and mr taylor's lack of supervisor experience it would be irrational for a jury to conclude that wilson was substantially more qualified for the position at issue in this case which he didn't know about and form a position writing a rational for the jury to conclude to well you know there was a new director that was the decision maker the select and i'm not dis your reading of the evidence to make clear and all your argue that's that they're not mutually exclusive at all as jether if we put all this stuff in front of the jury and just on this narrow part there's there's other disputes in this case or potential disputes  this case and mr boyd says look i work with both of them i work with her extensively here's all the things we did all the accolades i couldn't go anywhere without her because she was the key person on this in the department i was very surprised it would be irrational and i don't want to is a significant call a farm fall in our case hamilton versus gardner so i just want to know whether it be irrational for a jury to factor let's just say factor that in experience that factored into his selection for this position in two thousand and fourteen i thought there was a well your honor was easy that's the issue is whether there is admissible evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the non selection of wilson was due to unlawful discrimination and and i and our view is that there is no such evidence in the record that the court will ever leave their insufficient evidence i think you'll say insufficient your honor that from which a reasonable jury could make that conclusion and i'm sorry i didn't check on your questions mr judge walker i'm sorry no i don't all right so if you look at the posting for the job they wanted specialized experience including overseeing the bankcard program and supervising staff and wilson were to introduce admissible evidence which she seems to have of six years of experience managing the bankcard program and directly supervising three individuals and indirectly supervising sixty six others and then the jury also heard that mr taylor had as he said repeatedly in his testimony now bankcard experience and with very little supervisory experience but to be sure you would have your evidence of the other skills that he had could a jury factor rasch a rational jury factor how closely wilson's resume mapped onto the actual job description could be a factor that into a decision about whether there was preached rexx or discrimination or would it be irrational to do i think the candidate's qualifications are the basis from which the jury could you know in the text in the event that one the one candidate was substantially more that in terms of then describe mr taylor's qualify after the fact describing mr taylor's qualifications as their extra elevenses that the position had evolved and so significantly in two year period i think that you know director bob it was relatively new to the position that he had to fill here the context of the announcement was the need for stronger internal controls and risk prevention which required a broad set of skills that was was different from what the position had demanded in the past and w evidence were introduced that wilson had implemented internal control checklist for the bank card program at work with sixty six program coordinators to ensure internal controls and the argument was that the position had evolved emphasize internal controls could a rational jury factor that evidence in determining whether this evolution was the basis for picking irrational as a matter of law let alone a jury to weigh those things i think those are facts in the record that the juries would normally way to take into account however in this case i don't see  looking for an ability to lead projects and people to lead change and taylor i think might have been three times that he hadn't had supervisory roles maybe at the end he finally had a little a little one i would say i think a jury would consider that you wouldn't consider it contrary to law to allow a jury to rely on evidence like that as part of other things in deciding whether to infer discrimination or not or pretext well i think what heller was referencing was that he she wasn't a supervisor in the sense of you know being in a position to discipline people hire fire people and i believe the the agency was looking at it considered supervisory experience to include you know supervising project or leading team oh i thought they said lean people and projects and i wrong about that will enable the want to live in projects there were some questions from judge walker a payout morgan loadings testimony on her deposition sorry not testimony on whether mr burris had been sold at the interview not he just said he's extremely thorough and detailed in knowing process so that's what she was relying on she did she was not present for a conversation between bob itch a couple times i have no basis for comparison when asked to compare the two of them so that's kind of confusing and it's you know it's a it's a declaration it's not a deposition where questions are asked so it's kind of confusing well it inferences are that would come from  reviewed the resumes and she was aware of this evolution of the position she'd have she'd have some basis she might she wouldn't be able to evaluate their oral skills in an interview but she would have a basis for comparing their their whether they were qualified right based on the resumes that she refused to have been privy to this evolution in the position to i don't think that that's covered specifically in the record but it appears that expired and if there are no further questions will rest on our brief and ask the court to affirm the district court's judgment thank you mr serino mr moore will give you two minutes very well yes experience probably means not relevant in as much as mr boyd who had supervised mr taylor and who worked at the joining position and also within the same department and who was in charge of bank cards would have known if mr taylor had done bank hard work because that bank artwork would have had to come through this particular department so any my client did not have internal control that's completely false i indicated that in a deposition that she did have internal controls experience and if you go back and look at the statements may in our statement of