she actually took several steps after she was appointed to try to get full time appoint regular appointments and the first year and a half that she was employed to pass tricky if we adopted that that definition of eligible for appointment there could never for example be it's n regular employees based on length of service but in all of those cases the applicants are the employees that were the plaintiffs were not qualified for appointment to a regular physician had in which case the plaintiffs were on an eligible list but in that situation the city was required to appoint the people who were highest on the list we don't have that situation here in but the supreme court also reiterated the standard in mcgillicuddy which was that if a position is not temporary fast and not temporary under the law by which the position was created then it cannot be considered temporary simply because it's been called temporary well i'd like to respond to that in two ways one is that at the same time she was led to believe and we submitted evidence so there's the fact that her position was permanent that unless she messed up and some way she would continue to work there she was given regular performance evaluations like were permanent employees and i have one of her regular performance evaluations annual employment performance evaluations like regular employees she was told your work over the past just been wonderful we look forward to working with you next year and she was basically led to believe that as long as she continued to do her job and meet expectations that she would have a job but the other answer to that is that months without certain authorizations for longer than a year without authorization by the board of supervisors and these authorizations were never sought or obtained and and only i believe it was a one year extension she far any extension that was authorized by the statute in furthermore she was doing the ongoing work of the of the hospital department she was assigned to she was initially brought in she thought to clean up some backlog  all present its course but that that particular job ended with or that duty ended within the first six months of her employment and they kept her on doing the regular work of the department also her regular permanent employee because they did not meet the qualifications they weren't eligible to be appointed to those positions for one reason or another either they didn't pass the test or a little didn't score high enough on the test on the list or actually did for whatever reason day temporary position just for the duration of emergency while they were filling with a permanent position and permanent one category and second category nothing else the county's organs by contrast have ongoing does it make your point are i don't think so while going through that in part of the reason why that issue comes up i think in the first opinion is because judge wilson in his first order found that she wasn't qualified at all therefore nothing else mattered but  the second time around with the benefit of discovery and more declarations and frankly more time on our part to qualification is a multi layer issue you first of all you have the qualification to apply for the position in the fact that the plaintiff herself kept applying i think is probably the best evidence that she knew all the way along that she never was permitted never to make the position of the in that position permanently well there are still sixty reasons behind the politics as i mentioned the union the unions were the one who didn't want to help long term temporary employees and the line is that it's because people change their life the commission comes into the job she's been there six years that's why she kept trying to get a permanent position temporary ones are not so that's also part of the politics behind of the record the first time around on the first time we judge her motion she came in at eight o'clock one morning with a not from her doctor that she needed like duty and at two o'clock that day she was given her terminations on the basis that she had worked over a thousand hours that i would i would like to respond to two things one that some lower us basins the ones that a court that she was she was terminated in violation of the fair employment housing at for disability or perceived disability that was the attendant court the first thing i want to respond to is that a lower level employee didn't notice and as and slipped up that should not be chairman of the in this case in fact there were higher level employees who knew how long this jenkins had worked because the director of personnel countersigned her her lease papers under the family medical leave act twice in which case she had to certify that the employee had worked more than twelve hundred fifty hours in the last year at the time that she was appointed she had passed the test she was on an eligible was she had met all the requirements to be appointed to a regular position the only step is that she did not pass which was that she was actually  service she was being treated as someone who could only be discharged from home well we did argue that the first time around and i think in the trial court and i think a lot i have to concede the law is pretty