agency were not believable and i think the record shows consistently the agency went out of their way to hire this woman including accepting her application after the deadline she didn't meet any of the standard don't understand what we're supposed to do with this kind of thing because it's simply somebody else's opinion about the same facts it's as if it's if you had a trial and you had two different juries and one jury came to my conclusion that the jury came to a different conclusion is that going to make it objection and the problem i think some of the members of the panel are having is absolutely here so there's still the problem under what circumstances is opinion evidence admissible under the seven hundred series reason i'm going to say is it male versus female in the office twenty two people there are only five men they don't go they don't deliver batteries for him they bend over backwards for her and everything she does about ten or different things wrong she's not even that's one of them but if you look at the facts that are in here i mean applying the most after the close of the oath of applications for the position they accept or to apply she doesn't meet the standard under the under the student regulation having twelve units and passing them so they say it doesn't matter they sit there and they have liked her better and she made them very charming or whatever but you know that's not that doesn't raise the issue to overcome a summary judgment and made the initial decision and the people who would also pass on her eligibility there's an argument made that they are they're not really the decision makers as to eligibility they're only interviewing well that's an argument they made the kellys the person who sure i've seen a case like that and here we have a situation where the person who saw the witnesses came out one way and the district judge who didn't see the witnesses came out the other way to do novel standard and yet been looking high and low for any explanation for what was supposed to do with this so i think in this case especially there should be no weight given to the opinion of the mainstream judge because the facts the limited facts that are contained in the for the delegates announcement under which mr martinez supply but not the closing date for the student announcement there which is the end up sliding that there wasn't a closing date for that so there should be no weight given to date there was no evidence that it was beyond the closing date and her a king in reference the closing date for an announcement that didn't apply to the student showing that it was it was an improperly found either in the record or even evidence that may be considered by the court in the decisions for example that council parent leigh there seems to be an agreement between  evidence to create the presumption the defense then came in and showed an alternate reason and the question then devolves on whether that alternate reason was protection or enlarge major that turns on a judgment as to the state of mind of miss kelly the person who made the ultimate decision shouldn't questions of state of mind be sent to the jury you know your honor first i would like to make certain that the court appreciates that as to the prima facia case that is only as to gender discrimination for the voile fixed position correct guess my question was short of direct evidence of discrimination and we know that's only one of the two ways that you can find a pretext what more could mr martinez have shown that would get determination that she had the wisdom never to articulate and that is i will never hire a man but if that's her true motivation yes how does he how does he prove that other than have her admitted confess well there may be statements from her there may be statements from under other individuals that that they're making at them i mean the the indirect evidence that he was more qualified than she was and the interviewers and everyone or the majority of the workers in the office are female you know just proportionate number why isn't that enough i don't believe that the evidence is that he was more qualified he had more years of experience but the position that they were applying for she was equally as but the actual evidence was that there was seven units that were completed in the one five unit course that was not completed which i believe seven point five would be twelve units and she also testified misty and then she then made up that course full time student in parentheses you know it's generally maybe twelve years but there's no evidence that he presented to show that would be the type of evidence the court is asking for you could show that in fact she was required to take twelve years thank you very much