our review is to nova that's number one which means that we don't owe any difference whatsoever to the district court in the nd the nd thing is that district courts are required to say a word when they issue s court properly analyze mr of you as rebuttal evidence in light of the explanation that will marty and as to whether or not they have to explain what they consider this court instructed  when district courts analyzed the pleasure of a little evidence is not enough to just hold that they didn't submit additional evidence of discrimination this court gave an example and cited hit all as an example where the  circuit did not apply the correct analysis this court criticised the st circuit for both failing to address the significance of the plaintiffs are vital evidence and proof failing to explain why it fell short in fact the dover cour reasoning that the plaintiff had offered no evidence they could reasonably be construed to indicate people employer intended to discriminate is the same reasoning almost verbatim as the district courts here today riviera it could have at that time submitted dish no evidence connecting that job description to the project manager positions but but the burden is on mr of year due to  over all right and so if you his argument is that he significantly more of them he's got the put in evidence of what his qualifications or what the other  employers case especially in a close call if a reasonable jury can compare the qualifications and find that one of the candidates was significantly more qualified their reasonable jury can infer discrimination if a reasonable jury was always required to defer to the employer in their job discrimination case could ever go to trial so question as to whether he was significantly more qualified and when martha acted with this woman or tory in town i guess i guess the question that i would ask more narrow question if the judgment is the st time that there's any mention of these being specialized positions for kind of the insulation or financial management nowhere in the two thousand and fourteen memo that john thomas wrote right after he made the decision nowhere during john thomas's deposition and nowhere in the job description is there any mention of these being specialized positions for canopy insulation financial management you're given you're modest business policies practices and procedures it's difficult to see how having worked there for fourteen years he didn't overcome this or this is especially when you compare scald vacations to those of the higher candidate professional right yes she was she managed a budget of one hundred million dollars we did so has the jury decided maybe he was a more bit more qualified maybe he wasn't but under add that those when you when you've got nuances like that and small differences between the the candidates th court said in aca that they're not going to micromanage or or make a decision itself that that it's up to the the people that are running that whenever the companies well we feel why there are a number of other attributes in both of their resumes that show you that mr area is significantly more qualified he has over thirty years of experience in the transportation industry misleading before working at wal mart  never worked a transportation company meaning she had less than two years of experience in the transportation industry further the job description so your preference for someone with a minimum of eight years experience in the transportation industry you're  n in this whole case can hinges on the job description it's from the wrong year in there's no one even in the declaration saying that this is the right job as well with their business practices policies and procedures and they hired someone who had worked there for less than two years instead of mr v editor who had worked there for over fourteen this gap i levy having only worked there for two years overcame the gap or ever came this hurdle of being familiar with walmart as business practices policies and procedures where history of the n f l further masters of science and systems engineering from the university of his bank he had over thirty years of experience and in transportation industry where he oversaw a multi million dollar grants manage an adjusted budget and was for for supervising contractors consultants and engineers at will model he had been a senior project manager on seven major projects where he'd manage call schedules replace major electrical mechanical equipment and work in these specialized positions for financial management or can be insulation ever given that he has served as a project manager for thirty years was in charge of all construction at his previous job at septa and then in this search that he we're not hiring this area because he's too old i'm sure that point he would have raised a sure nation but it never said that and he never raised that issue before the dish or court and said we wouldn't argue on that ground however because that's not what they said  sufficient evidence based on the record before it with respect to to title seven claims of racial discrimination stemming from his non selection to two project manager roles in november rd team and measures office of major capital project well i don't know of credibility there are three job descriptions submitted in opposition a summer job one is a two thousand and six job position for a manager engineer and one is a two thousand and nine job description of a construction inspector and so it i'm fine with that because i think even if we assume that this is the job description used the summary of the job description states that they're looking to fill a role who could perform projects on time within budget specific in his affidavit he says it stated the specific written nature of the project management roles that he was trying to fill misleading specifically worked in his department work underneath them and demonstrated the experience as a project  well in this instance there's a job code from two thousand and ten that describes the duties of a project manager as used by various departments according to this document and importantly fact that he worked as a project manager however technical that was an electrical engineering or whatever over in several different capacities over a long period of time tends to show that there was that he was not being to screamin he got all those positions and if there was discrimination it will moderate how do you explain that you can't so what you're left with is just simply a comparison of his seems to me that you cannot infer was no direct evidence of discrimination that you can't possibly infer discrimination disagrees and it's not and i'd like to add in the minimum qualifications additionally there is an equivalent combination of education and relevant work experience that would be considered as part of these minimum qualifications and misleading that those standards  education and relevant work experience that will be considered if the candidate can meet these certain things and she can and did she worked with in that department she had direct fiscal responsibility over major construction projects she did it under the supervision of the hiring manager so he observed he says this is not subjective criteria like somebody interviewed strongly this is somebody who demonstrated the capability of performing adequately that role and so in that  sense it's not like the occupation where there was one thousand years of experience as a hospital orderly to fill prescriptions or deliver descriptions and was familiar with the pharmacy versus a person that one year in the laundry and only finance and construction and working on energy and transportation projects and it was directly applicable to this role in the office of major capital projects and so i believe that they viewed her education portuguese but the candidate does speak the language and the employer knew it in link from the snow one of the examples is that the government said it could not promote somebody from g s thirteen to g s fifteen but there was a personality option where they could and so that was something that was a misstatement about why they didn't select them i don't believe that that's the situation here i think the situation is much more similar to holcombe where she said all their misstating my qualifications she said that other candidates selected had a better breadth of understanding of oio complaints and she said well two years ago i had positive performance review about my processing of a heel complaint and the court determined look this is not an inconsistent statement this is not something that is a contradiction but that you never said holcomb lacked experience or never processed you'll complain i think that's similar here we're not saying this to get a lap he experience in submitting costs for approval or budgets or keeping a project on time we're just saying that the cow it selective had a better breath of understanding for the type of work within the office of major capital projects for the project manager position that she was selected for and again i don't believe our on brief they had a rd reason about insubordination that's not been the case here believe if you read the two thousand and fourteen memo that was can close to contemporaneous with the decision from john thomas that he was saying that mr rove years experience was narrowly focused he reiterated that in deposition and he expanded on an affidavit it appears for the st time because the record wasn't developed it wasn't asked directly what were your objective drop qualifications that you were filling these roles for he wasn't asked that he just if you read the positions for canopy insulation soley based on that woman is misstating his qualifications mr abuse resume shows over thirty years of experience in the transportation industry where he has been in charge of all construction and they manage major construction projects and project manager projects at various rail stations your honor all these projects were within the same position he held the same position and while he was working as the project manager on these different projects he applied for twelve new positions and never received any of them and honor as i recall this position was did include a pay increase and that is why the survey that it was applying for is he was seeking this new position and that which included a pay increase and he had applied for twelve previous positions and not received any of them and again your honors if you look at his resume for wal mart or to say that he was not fit to install canopies when he's built entire substations job description the other things that the job description says opposing counsel points out that mr v that mrs levy had the progressive leave responsible in nine years of financial management to satisfy the eight year minimum requirement however the job description explicitly says a minimum of eight years working in the transportation industry on this leaving might have had this progressive leader responsible financial experience she had never worked at a transportation company you're on or mislead has never worked at a transportation company she does have some progressively responsible fivefold management experience but not in the transportation industry and this riviera on the other hand has over thirty years of resume while ignoring others that show he while he did have a focus and that he had of the right experience and certainly was qualified to handle this job so's your argument reasonable fact finder you were in the evidence in the light transportation industry than this levy and once again if we only look at one piece of evidence and that is mr a b s resume with this broad long transportation project manager experience where he's built entire substations the storage containers elevators escalators to assert that he was not qualified to build canopies which mr varian self assertive only requires the tightening of bolts and they don't interview him then he can't get the job no i understand your point but counsel that's why i looked at your reply brief because i want to be sure you are sticking with it the way you have framed it it's a little different than some of these other cases where people say i shouldn't receive the job because i'm much more qualified than the person who received it that is not the argument we're presented with this is leaving may have degrees interview that's your discriminatory and not even receive an interview for these positions especially when opposing counsel has even recognizing this argument that he was well qualified at the least mr deserve to receive an interview so that mr thomas and discrimination based on that one the key there your honor would be wal mart explaining that that was the reason for their decision all this boils down to is whether say that it didn't like him he didn't say he was too old it said that he wasn't qualified that he wasn't able or fit to install canopies and that this is a good discrimination you're claiming racial national