and with the hubris of the orchestrated what basically was a coup to get rid of her according to at least one of them ten harrington forty something young forty something rain had outlived her usefulness and by implication was incapable or not competent because of her age to effectively deal with the credit unions financial situation the courts below granted summary judgment it looked first of whether my client had proved pretext and the nothing here is that if you are looking at the opinion of the district court it's pretty clear that the court basically decided citing reeves that my client had not been able to demonstrate that the reason given by the credit union for her terminations was not credible and also had not established any evidence showing a discriminatory motive that is a bias basically what the court said was it looked at that other part of reeves which said you know if the record conclusively show some other reason for the action taken then and the judge said basically that the the other reason was the financial condition and the two thousand year two thousand and so mantel report that was produced by the state and course of the meetings that the board and supervisory committee had in especially in may of two thousand and one and then at the time my client was terminated in june of two thousand  it's clear that the examiners were pressuring the credit union to get rid of my client and there was a there was a pressure early on an inquiry by those examiners in one nine hundred ninety eight about my what my client's retirement plans were now they were the pressure that was it being exerted by the examiners evidently continued and it appears that what the examiners did was pressure these young forty somethings that were  that went on the board in two thousand and one nine hundred ninety nine two thousand those were ten harrington and russell accuse pressured them and so i think that they were interested in the events that occurred in the interim because what occurred was the production of the introduction of that examiners report for the year two thousand that happened in april of two thousand and one in addition during that time it's clear from the testimony that ten their intent was talking and actually russell accused as well another board young board member were talking to the examiners and the examiners work making it clear to those individuals that they wanted to see my client gone that day and the answer and say this that they want they wanted to see my client gone and she was and harrington wanted to see my client gone because they were not they did not believe my client was competent or able to bring about any improvement in the financial condition of the credit union so how does that help your pretext well just well it's if i'm a member of a board of a credit union that ray could no longer manage the credit union in any competent matter manner but in addition what you have are comments in the meeting if you look at the excerpts of record that contain the the minutes or the actual transcript of the meeting at which my client was terminated they were not talking about that the financial condition or the two thousand report what they were talking at that was this pattern of concern that was introduced by tim harrington and also by mr hughes and was apparently contributed to by mr kendrew another board member and the decision that they made that day to terminate my client was not expressly based on the financial condition it was based on a lie as an innuendo and the untru and characterizations that's what you contain those that matter whether the board was was right or wrong it matters whether the board was truthful in believing it was it was terminating your client based on those reasons evidence the inference is reasonable to draw that it was based in part at least in part on her age and that is for the jury to decide now there's one other issue and i think you will lose it too in your question which is the catspaw issue apparently they start on the transcript of that meeting in june there was the there were members who believed what was said in the pattern of concern but my client has sound that that many most of the things in the pattern of concern were absolutely untrue so what you have here is two young board members who want probably wan somebody much younger than my client and i want to do you want to himself according to your client well yes that's true but he was also forty four he i think he also felt that he was more confident in part by reason of his age and background and under a placed the credit union in this series jeopardy being taken over by the anti us the examiners criticized calculus in many many ways but virtually all of them wrong made it to management on the record decreasing the delinquency of a rapidly increasing as of the end of may the return on assets was so well that it was losing losing money at the rate of three million dollars a year now compared to its profit for the prior year that's a indirect lending program was instituted in the middle of of two thousand and approximately july of two thousand and that was a program that was it was approved by the board but it was under the control of ms rae who was who was tasked with managing that program and she didn't know where those loans were coming from she's going to be no control over at all she had no idea where any of those were coming from until march of two thousand and one by that time it was just out of control in her own words that she ever received a negative review she had they were giving her bonuses when she really wasn't performing and so ultimately what the board did here is they say we are seeing all this criticism because because of management and and ultimately this this credit union is going under and s maybe they terminated her has she been fifty and had expectations of an active career yet as opposed to somebody who's sixty eight and approaching retirement at some point is that age discrimination if they treat a sixty eight year old differently than you treat discrimination in this decision and if i meet mr ms forbes mr harrington and i do to get rid of her in this pattern of concern i want to be sure that i dr terminate her and so so then they went to a boat in june of two thousand and one and they brought to that meeting a ballot for and meeting they said they said they passed around a stack and everybody  clarify it was the full hour even though if you average the composite it would have been eight three which was exactly what the credit union had been the year before so it was the examiners who you exercise their subjective judgment and made it into a for the issue of whether the board or the management could have lost control of the credit union that was one of the threats that mr harrington said that it happened that  at the the credit union could be taken over well mr harrington has acknowledged he did it in a meeting public meeting before in front of my client and other people subsequent to these events he acknowledged that they make that threat but they never make that threat but they have yet to do it and that he didn't presumably he didn't think that would really happen the question of whether there was a reliance on the part of the board pattern of concern is answered by the depositions of the individuals find out of the board members to vote if for terminations either said they relied on it or had input and and my input i'm talking about m terminations he said it was a foregone conclusion even though he was not satisfied