salary there were findings of fact in testimony regarding whether he was subordinate to other people in the kitchen in the restaurant where he worked and there were findings of fact made as to whether he had played a role in hiring firing from the findings of fact the district judge erroneous leaking that my client was a executive employee exempt from the requirement pay overtime for the entirety of his employment this was a clear error on the facts that were testified in on the facts that were found and if you'll let me i will go over those that there were three periods when my client was employed by the first for about seven days in november and december of two thousand and fifteen he was employed at a rate just wondered what are you concerned ending that the findings of fact with respect to hiring and firing for example are clearly erroneous or you contesting any of the specific findings of fact as being clearly erroneous whether the whether you had the authority to hire and fire but even taking that he did it even assuming that he did the only time he had would have had that authority was in the last essentially two fact that the judge made as a matter of law which we have been novo review that doesn't constitute being a managerial employee or are you contesting as clearly erroneous some aspect of the fact finding so for example when you say he was only only had hiring firing firing authority towards the end is that the district judge is fact finding where is the district judge is fact finding that he had hiring and firing authority period full stop and if that's a fact finding are you saying that that is clearly  erroneous that's a complicated question centrally the district judge found me or concluded rather that my client had hiring and firing authority over the entire course of the flame and based on challengeable in terms of credibility but that's not a matter for us that he always is but your client was always employed in the same capacity and even if they weren't that testimony it's not clear to me that the fact finder infer that testimony as to his hiring and firing particular people at particular times shows what authority he had at least in the absence of country testimony and i was not aware you can correct me if i'm wrong that mr wang ever testified oh there was a difference between the role i played at this period and that period and yes maybe i had hiring and firing authority at this time but i didn't at this other time as far had the same position throughout his employment and taking that with incredibility which the district judge did find of the testimony from the levy that he had hired and fired people i'm sorry i didn't i don't think i understood it but i have again but my question was new now do you agree that the point there have different duties during his different employ period and yet you're thinking compensation for the whole time he was implied isn't that correct yes your honor what we needed to happen  was different duties over the course of his employment needed to be analyzed separately what the district judge did was he took evidence pertaining only to the last period of them women which we can test for conclusion on other ground understand but you don't have to necessarily have direct authority to hire fire into the regulation if your recommendations are or are given and are given particular weight by the person who actually physically does the finder and then then then that still could qualify that's try your honor but there was no evidence to that effect for the particularly the nd and st period of his employment also i should know if we put aside your client's testimony and just look at the witnesses of the other witness wasn't there testimony to the fact that your client directed the kitchen staff throughout the period  throughout all three periods and also if you feel other witnesses only had knowledge of july and august that's two out of the  no longer under another hedge so you're now arguing that he was examined in the rd period but not in the st two i'm arguing that if there is if he was exempt in the rd period that would say nothing about the st i'm not sure i understand why it would say nothing the only testimony  yes that's correct and isn't the district court intitled to make a credibility finding and to either rely on that testimony or not the district court did make a credibility fine how well did the district court accept any part of mr wong testimony and say oh this is what he says and i believe that and therefore  clear in the question and it seems to me that a fact finder does not you're arguing as if the judge was obliged to accept mr juan's testimony that he lacked certain authority at an earlier stage when in fact he takes his testimony seems to be that he never had that authority for example so why would the district judge be compelled to accept his  testimony or to draw some inference in his favor that what he says was true throughout was in fact true at the beginning or has to be presumed true until and unless there is a witness on the other side who specifically refutes each and every aspect of that testimony i mean he says basically i was just another cook in the restaurant really and didn't have any managerial role and then various people come in and dispute that and perhaps they only dispute with respect to particular moments because those are the moments that those witnesses personally observed why does that create a situation in which by a preponderance of the evidence the plaintiff must be believed about january when the district court specifically finds that his testimony about july and august is not correct because there was a countervailing there was countervailing testimony presented to november and december and january through that testimony was found incredible and my client's testimony was credible with the district court found that your client was telling the truth when he said i had no managerial thirty in january and that the owner was lying when he testified the contrary  where in the judge's opinion she says that the owner was found incredible when he testified as to the people that michael that my client supposedly hired and fired during that time my client that my client also denied hiring and firing people during that time on balance that the preponderance of the evidence in favor of my client correct that the judge says that plaintiff counsel did raise that argument at that final stage of the case in the district court and i'll read you exactly what the judge says plaintiff's counsel argues for the st time today that all the nonparty testimony about his alleged managerial role related to the end period of his employment mr lew however clearly testified that from the start one was hired to help him manage the kitchen now that sounds to me as if the judge is not discrediting mr lou's testimony on that point but is accepting it and using it as a taishan of the argument raised at the very last minute that there should be a distinction between the two periods and a few pages later excuse me a moment because court is skeptical that mr lew was unable to countermand mr wanks decisions as he testified at trial but court credits his detailed description of mr wang as authority to fire without his prior approval as mr lew recounted mr was in charge of the kitchen so i have to support him in every way that i can in that regard that was a request of mr wang when he st came in the sholay plaintiff has offered no evidence or supporting testimony that he was subject to direct supervision other than self serving statements that he quote had to take orders close quote from the individual defendant now does any of that sound to you like the district court credited mr wanks testimony about what his duties were at the beginning of his employment and discredited mr lewis testimony on that subject sounds to me rather the contrary time the district judge was considering and furthermore that the district judge ignored flat out even referred to countervailing testimony she said countervailing testimony did not exist but there was countervailing testimony that during the november december period and during the january to june period that my client was  from my client and also on cross the specially for the st period defended and admitted that you used to be his business partner and was in charge of the well that goes to freedom from supervision in later periods supposedly tripods you had left the restaurant and there was from a certain point another he from another higher rank person that that is one of the prongs of the executive exemption test that each of which must be