stereotypes so these are not just offhand comments that were divorced from the challenge employment action in the words of mr parker himself pay was based on these stereotypes and in any event  present at the kind of evidence that that causes statements to be considered direct evidence of discrimination and not mere stray remarks there is evidence at trial that these statements were routine and made by mr parker who had influence over her so aside from this direct comparative here it's the job responsibilities that matter that's a page nineteen of their brief and the only real way that alice you seeks to differentiate the job responsibilities of mr strength go from those of miss her sister is to say that responsibilities the dean of the school of art testified that she had research for sponsibility at that eleventh seventy one mr estrich of himself testified that mr starr had research responsibilities and even mr monaco  at the time in question instructed miss her sister to concentrate your efforts on the research aspects of your duties that's at twelve nine and six now mr monaco of course is the person whose testimony ellis you realize and almost exclusively to say that professionals in residence as a general matter have different job duties than assistant professor but whatever the worth of that testimony on a rule fifty motion with alice you is the move it certainly  justify the judgment below when mr or mr monaco himself recognise that in the specific case of mr hurst or she had research responsibilities as part of her job and instructed her to form  if i may have i to turn to the whistleblower cla it evidence that alice you increased fees or impose new fees on students without legislative approval and state law prohibits new fees imposed and students without wage legislative approval under article seven section two point one a of the constitution now ls you does not dispute that this provision of the constitution applies to it it does not dispute that it impose new and unapproved fees on students it does not dispute that unconstitutional feat would would satisfy the state law violation element of a similar statute and it does not contend as the district court seem to hold that the constitution would require some kind of specific intent before there could be a violation of this provision instead i was your essentially argues that fees are exempt from legislative approval if those fees are use for the purchase of consumable art supplies fees charged by traditional governmental agencies providing services do and or regulating citizens enough additional money or issue football which is a special category unlike probably no fees and  your crime is doing but nonetheless there does seem to be a push back by this one opinion to as broad of interpretation of fees as you want to give it well so that even under the interpretation it would apply to anything other than fees charged by traditional governmental agencies providing services to in or regulating sitters and that almost seems to be saying that colleges are not what they were this memo was talking about i don't would be covered by the constitution but let's not cover things that are under under the sycorax meeting or things that are extracurricular basically are not directly related to ellis who's function of providing students education here at the course so even if we assume the interpretation of the louisiana constitution that alice you has proposed to this court and even then mr satisfied her burden on that first element of showing of a violation of warning of there's a different rule for the a series of oral motions that are relying in part on some of the same ground is there any law or two opposing counsel tell me if he found anything is it clear that these sorts of our emotions as a same sort of rigidity to them as a written motion would that if you talked about these arguments in earlier motions and that's ruled on you move on to the next motion you've got to restate everything for that next motion and also let me be c arose in district court and he wouldn't raise it and so what we're dealing with the rule fifty and after both sides of rested you have these series of motions all dealing with the same ultimate restated they had for this particular motion too but i'm just asking is there any case well i'm sure you can say no that would but say that some of those same arguments if they apply related ones that the some flexibility in the rule that you're grounds for the motion to be stated and i haven't seen any case law that says there's no allowance for when the motion is made orally rather than in writing nor do i think that kind of allowance would make sense because the point as this court has explained of the specific grounds motion is to allow everyone the court and the parties to know what the what the bad alleged evidence your deficiencies are so those can be addressed now this is not a case actually where the rule fifty motion is made at the clo is no violation of the law and nor that there was any reprisal and to go to your comments and questions judge southwick about the facility properties of sar the was in a public facilities case versus  you the specific holding in the case of course was that there was only an attempt to put legislative control over certain types of new fees because of a concern that certain government agencies were implementing new  fees using the emergency procedures provision of the administrative procedure act and it found that the representative landrieu had put that in there that was his intent and the court goes on in that case which is minutely only persuasive authority and it talks about those fees and it makes a distinction between things that are or else she's purpose or government function and things that are not and it says that if it is goes directly to the purpose or the government a function such as the delivery of education then of course there would be approval would be needed but the opposite would be true the converse would be true that if it doesn't go to salaries buildings things like that then of course there would be no need for the approval and what it did do was look at a constitutional provision or quintin section seven a which empowers ellis who board of supervisors and it specifically says look we don't want to remove administrative control over all issues daily activities so they read these two provisions and perry materia and they say there is this is not an all encompassing sort of situation where every single fee by every government agency has to be approved by the well in this case we're drawn the line right at what the fees were being used for which was being used for supplies for students that they were consuming themselves the legislative auditor did a very detailed audit they posited her as probably their store witness on this issue but the auditor's testimony was primarily in favor of ellis you what it found was yeah the students were in fact using them the problem was a lack of internal accounting controls which i'll issue absolutely admits we made a mistake in this situation we did agee monaco who was the dean of the arts school since pacifically this was an accounting error and that's what the legislators orders fundings are very specific six things in particular automated override yes all of which are  functions but mr dean also said this was really an error on the part of the division of the administration in finance this was not even something that's attributable to the school board they were just really follow the instructions we gave them and also the instructions bursar and how to go about taking these fees what were the students using them for with these in for paint clay things like that there's been no testimony that there was they were being used for anything else and more importantly there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was any faculty were using these for their personal benefit they bring up monitors they bring up i pads and they're in their briefs and they talk about this but the final decision the final outcome of the findings was that every single  single monitor was accounted for no permanent charges no misappropriation of public funds and they didn't certainly start very broad in terms of the scope of what they claimed that the school board did they said oh it's theft it is misappropriation of funds but they drop that they're not looking at that on the allegations by her sternum which i'm yes that is correct initial actually got involved in this that is correct it is the why she got involved i'm sorry i just wanted you're asking me why she was in the arctic part right that's correct oh why did she get involved and complaining about the status of the fees i think the complaint just clomid to be quite honest with you is just part and parcel of a long series of complaint she asserted against the school board which quite frankly underlie the pay discrimination claims as well as the spoliation claims was started from day one of her review schedule which as a result of this complaint it was not there is  there was not it was for faculty members were up for review and we have to consider the time frame and as the end of february we have finals that stuart in may you have a essentially a three month period the faculty review the first meeting in which they did do a review was on march twenty first there was uncontroverted evidence that mister moore whom actually set this meeting up they had to mr parker rather boss who said that this review has to go forward they have a certain amount of time they've got to go ahead vote on it they've got to accommodate the fact that there could be some appeals of those decisions that's precisely what they did but whatever entity you may supply to setting the meeting which had been it was on the day after  received notice that the course fee situation was brought up the fact is you had twenty two people twenty two who were on this faculty appointment committee each of one who voted and every one of which said we issue head not been talked about and all that evidence is uncontroverted every single witness that got on the stand said they would talk about it to say not to talk about it in fact issued a great deal of restraint in the circumstances especially since the day of the to every faculty member and she says hey this is what's going on we're talking about good faith and moving forward i don't think that was necessarily good faith report but each person had the restraint and they said we're not going to talk about it we're not going to considered and that's precisely what happened in a out she got it voted significantly ok also would you say to the argument though that we can't on the whistleblowing at least consider that because it wasn't part out of the roof fifty motion and all we can consider is no but it is it was part and parcel of the evidence that was before the court at that particular point in time l she was never backed off of its position they saw the opportunity to make that rule fifty motion i think it was just  ongoing proceedings the plaintiff certainly had noticed that opposition was trying to get pretty close would you agree there's nothing in that motion that you are relying on there was no causal relationship between whistleblowing would you agree with them yes argument was not made hearst group of evidence there's no dispute that mr orpen chaired that meeting shredded those those notes but there was never any order prior to that meeting for him to preserve and even after the meeting there was no instructions from h or anyone else you to shred of a chore and it's legal staff has taken a very consistent position post meeting and it says we believe these to be your personal notes and you can do what you will with them or it would be the report that is required to tell us who's policy p s thirty six and t which says like this is what you've got to tell you got to tell who was there you know tell him what the talent was whether any reasons or basis behind the decision that's precisely what he did but there's no requirement that during the process any quote minutes as we know it or notes or whatever or to be taken in some situations you know quote minutes or take detail  senator and others they're not and i just wondered in this not necessarily whether in her case but as a matter of routine it was in the rule policy or whatever date prescribed it when you're meeting to decide x you know there must be any kind of notes or was it just mr arps who's like a lot of this where you are take no that's correct there was no requirement that he in fact memorialized is the discussion into notes that was only the extrapolate from that what if he would have had that sort of memory certainly the memory itself is not a public record but also i don't think you can find here that would be an affirmative duty for him to regurgitate his memory to make notes and then make a report the report the notes serve strictly to connect his memory up to the report and there's never been there's no policies anything that the plaintiffs can point to that would would would contravene that and that particular meeting it resulted in a fifteen to five vote with two abstentions and when this first or really wasn't satisfied with that particular outcome she did appeal now what she they do they said well ellis you exerted control over this process and they point to an e mail by the dean of the school adults are dean of finance of ministration eighty monica and what they do is they exercise a critical cincinnati they'll assess right after the meet and take it right out of the quote they give you in the brief and this this particular quote says this is not right and what he says is she has no right to surreptitiously record conversations to harass threaten other people and that's precisely what happened in this post meeting atmosphere it escalated at at her hands too and really at the grave i mean is looming for the sake of my question than the discussion i was actually had at the meeting there was nothing else she had ample opportunity every witness that was put on the stance of the same thing we didn't discuss it it could be said that i suppose but she would end up with the same the same destination because there is no other evidence and not only was there no other evidence she failed to bring her own witnesses if she thought there was other evidence she did not bring call anyone else didn't take depositions of anyone who would who would have been at the meeting  situation where they said look there's another shoe file we want here's a pass and ploy you looked at in this committee and oh there you knows there were no such notes ever to be produced because every one of them was shredded over and over again and that was his particular custom and policy for dealing with those discussions the last point i'd like to suggest would be the pay discrimination issue and start first with the bias comments and she does identified four specific statements the first being a trailing spouse comment on a space gender neutral it's her husband in an e mail to the director of the art school use the spousal harm in an email to him i know they're different they're different sort of phrases but they mean exactly the same thing they're synonymous or self she testified about being a dual hire she identified herself in some way as being connected to her husband relative to the position she took and in fact the only reason they chose this was because it accommodated that situation my husband's a professor at the law school and look on here too i'm an orchestra and they looked at her resume they said hey you're very qualified let's take you on and in fact don't think ellis you say and she was not a talented and trotter or talented person in the field award what they really did have a problem with was the fact that she didn't want to teach the classes she signed a contract that says very specific this is what you need to do you've got to teach the reclass is a semester and she just wouldn't want to do it they want the first week emails to her boss saying i just don't want to teach three classes now only she does not want to teach three classes i don't want to teach this course digital photography which she was hired to teach in this story from day one and that goes to the proximate the temple proximity of those comments in her petition she identifies those comments talking about these comments no they are very remote in time from the any adverse employment the decision that she could be alleging to have taken place here is in fact the next employment decision that was made after these purported comments was a promotion more pay a lot more pay sixteen thousand dollars more pay when and she could not be satisfied about her schedule in teaching what mr parker did he act as if he was someone who was decidedly trying to discriminate against her based on her gender no he accommodated her he said look i'm going to i'm going to go ahead and let you lighten your load i'm led to teach to keep two courses instead of three but i have to give you some extra duties and these are the strength started out of the same position she did making exactly the same pay what happens next for the year academic year two thousand and eleven a nonstandard position homes open for a non two to four tenure track i'm sorry a tenure track position comes open mr franco applies she does not she simply did not apply for the position and it would be chewed before press to stand here today an argument i've been discriminated against because of my gender look at what you're doing look what you're giving franco when she never even applied for the very position which should cut it at its knees right off the bat and  differences even if you say well there's some reason the sum of discriminatory reason we're going to tribute to the issue for her failure to apply for the very position that she's complaining about she doesn't have you have to look at the differences she says well titles don't matter i can assure you they matter to her the record is replete with references to me wanting to have that title but really not wanting to do the work that is the problem and those statements about acting like a princess that was made right on the heels in two thousand and nine of her failure to follow through on her contractual obligation elision to teach those courses what he's talking about has nothing to do with gender and that's the only gender specific term we could look at he's not talking about gender he's talking about the fact that she won't follow through she's acting as if she has a sense of entitlement the fact is you get a job you go to work you do what you've been hired to do and she would not do it and in spite of it i commend mr parker because what he did was he tried to accommodate gosh he gave a promotion recommended to the family this is what we're going to do compare more and they begrudgingly gave it quite frankly it wasn't a unanimous vote even though here's a person who does he get repaid with he gets repaid with a nice c discrimination suit and the next year two thousand and ten she shows up with this new professional in residence title and again we're back to square one don't want to teach this class don't teach that class or email say no way not going to do that what does he do again trust a placates or try to placate to put her into this area co ordinated position because quite frankly he had to justify to the grievance against her this is been a series of grievances aimed at nothing this is nothing to do with gender this has everything to do with the person who is not following through with the duties that they contractually bound the cells to handle on behalf of it the attorney general's interpretation would require these fees to be approved by the legislature no your honor no your honor because they specifically go to the essential that the governmental purpose the the function of ellis you and that's to provide deliver an education to students the students themselves were consuming the fees that we're talking about addition and again this is the most the auditor could say was it has been a policy there's been a problem the policy we did something wrong w no intent to have oversight over fees with respect to alice you other than those he's directly connected with ellis whose principal governmental function of providing higher education to the citizens of the state i'm so even if we assume that of course he's here we're all these things there has to be a trial used in accordance with the school's policy these items included are not limited to i pads large screen monitors makeni devices except for a all items were purchased for faculty use that's the feeling in the audit report that the chancellor signed off on because your question just clinton about why was her sort of involved she got involved because she was concerned that students that money was being taken from students in appropriately one of her claims below was not only was this in violation of the constitution that it was actual fast retaliation for the whistleblower whistle blowing activity assuming that's preserved and that's a question that the judge that that this power can reach it's that these disputed whether miss her cers interview was preordained it was not required as a matter of policy under alice whose policy mr parker could reappoint mr starr for a year another your appointment without any action by the faculty he had done just that in the past and   was that this kind of performance review was a one page form that a supervisor would fill out not the kind of full blown faculty review that she actually hired her testimony on that is that top twelve for twelve thirteen and twelve six twenty eight