burden is on the movement in this case the defendant to show that there is no genuine issue material fact well the district judge this judge pryor correct and in reading that judgment there's a couple of things that i would t for some of the actions that they took and there were a couple of you had a couple of theories you claimed that you have the facts in your case are controlled by the miller case and the judge felt in this case i was paid less than similar situated attorneys and the district court at one point said that the initial hiring of fifty five thousand dollars was work for a paralegal i submitted documents deposition testimony in a declaration which showed that that was not true and in fact i did work as an attorney i did the same work as other tourney's in the office but you hadn't passed the california bar yet right but i did work on cases that were not necessarily california cases and i sure what the policy is another firm's and so and what happened there was actually another turning in the office who's paid substantially more the param or ben firth and she also was not licensed in the state of work i did even though i did work similar to other tourney's i felt that sometimes i was giving the lesser work than i should have been in addition i was paid less than other attorneys and i think as a whole all that information together that's up to pretext at least enough to go to a jury because their questions of fact that should be decided by a judge i mean the nice circuit itself has said that in civil rights cases very little evidence is needed to sustain or very little evidence is needed to defeat a summary judge motion because these cases are so fact intensive i submitted a declaration by a coworker which showed that she and her opinion thought i was treated differently from other people and i think together that does create sufficient facts to support a pretext enough to defeat summary judgment and you can have your argument and you want to save the rest your time for a bottle if you've got five minutes you can use them now but  their alleged statement of cheese was just a quote was also considering that the same actor inference and said that that played into evaluating what you know what the effect was if a different partner in the first firm you know had taken action against mr nadler with a claim with his claim of racial discrimination have to go to trial  not your honor first of all just just to be totally clear on the facts there is nothing in the record whatsoever to establish that anyone other than ben for both hired increase paid for mr an hour and then terminated mr another five and a half months after that so just provided a declaration they're both on the record that he actually did not know mr now there's national origin or race to begin with that's not something subject to dispute then for state of mind he did not know that mr nader was of asian descent well but if let's say he used the the traditional meaning i mean for example a new scary traditional meaning when there are certain iconic terms and iconic symbols that are associated with racism cheez whiz is not one of those terms there is judgment in the same act or contest your honor there's an additional hurdle for the plaintiff and you have to have extremely you have to make an extremely high showing of circumstantial evidence to get over that a one time use of the word she is with that mr now the is not even made in his presence cannot overcome the same after presumption in cases where racial epithets have been allowed there's always even been not only racial epithets there's even been an aggravating circumstance for example be raiding the person in front of other widespread sexual favoritism just to be very clear on the facts of this case there is not one fact showing favoritism of miss richards to be entirely clear this richards had an extensive litigation background before she came to the first firm she was started as salar hundred thousand dollars before she ever on the day she walked into the first firm based on her excellent spirits before ms richards ever came to the first firm she'd actually already been admitted to california pro hockey had already been very active in a product liability case in california so she was remains consensual relationship that mr richards was rewarded for that from day one she was put as the lead on the wal mart case she was paid a hundred thousand dollars salary there's no evidence that she was ever rewarded what is what i record show in terms of where whenever lation shit began relative to mr nadler coming to the firm the record does not show anything on the ok but what the record does show is that her salary never changed it was the before she entered a relationship with ben first and after and that she deserved that position based on her credentials and based on her experience not based on her sex there's no support for that in the record mr richards is a very competent attorney and she was very deserving of that job top sleep with someone that's like a dialogue was not going on at the first firm there's nothing in the record to establish that there was any sort of hostile environment created by this consensual relationship i think the record says that one time and again different actor and on the issue of the racial slur the intent of who says it is not an element or an issue in the case for example in the detainees the supervisor called someone said you filipino i'm sure if you asked him he didn't think that was offensive yet it was enough to survive summary judgment and was found that single instance w enough to create liability further i think it's an issue of fact to the jury to determine the impact of the racial slur and also there are many slurs that come about after just a single use last year  person running for senator used the word macaca he did not think that that was a racial slur yet the public interpreted as one and as a result he lost the law support eventually lost the rights and i submitted evidence that references to cheese are recognized as racial slurs against asians in the record i include a reference to cheese in it which refers to people that are part asian and part white and started therefore there can be no basis for that foundation well what is the evidence show about what her starting salary was there's a document in there produced by the first firm that showed it and during the deposition i tried to ask ben about  recall i don't think he was as familiar with it also there's a bonus structure involved and i could not obtain discovery even though i tried on the amount of bonuses that she received and as to her being an excellent attorney ever since she's left the first firm i believe she's worked at a single firm and then now she's listed as being in north carolina and not employed then first hasn't been employed since a few months after you left the first firm he plays golf and new mexico  litigation experience versus model education experience then first himself testified in his in the record that he didn't know what my experience was he didn't look at my resume i had motion practice i prepared discovery i've done lots of things involved in litigation and there was no direct comparison also under the equal pay act you look at the job you don't look at the individual person and if you look at the job that we performed at the time we were hired we did similar things in fact i worked on more cases will be submitted for