was fired essentially for being in the wrong place at the wrong time unfortunately for her that place was her assigned work station in that time was her assigned work shift the district court erred in granting summary judgment in this case because to do so it had result of a number of credibility questions and other disputed issues of material fact in favor of the movement of the many in due course you're familiar with these because you read the briefing in there and the by people outside of her class or did she show that other people outside of her class were treated more favorably than she was even if we assume you're correct on there still may be about to talk about there's still the pretext issue didn't is ignorant present sufficient evidence for a finder of fact to determine that reason was a pretext that it was not worthy of credence of that it was either that it was untrue or that it was not the real reason for terminations now to get to these we have to swim through essentially a sea of disputed evidence supported not by conjecture but by testimony from defendants and witnesses from documentation and also from the absence of evidence that is very relevant but before we get there i'm going to talk about the direct evidence and st of course with the standard the review de novo the court must take must view all of the light of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non movement must not resolve credibility issues mysteries of all controversies for the movement of the nonmoving so for it to donald douglas analysis there is evidence of direct evidence in this case now it is true that plaintiff is not resting all of her arguments on this however there is evidence that ms egan was told approximately a week before she was terminated by a patient access manager sheila jones who is at the same level as the person the evidence shows actually did make the decision that  children's wanted to get rid of eagle and in ms williams and replace them with people who were hispanic people outside of her class one week later that's exactly what happened there's also evidence that the prior manager  test mark there are a this is a little bit that more complicated and hurt than most direct evidence cases because sheila jones is not referring to her own beliefs she's referring to reportedly the wishes of the higher ups or the powers that be a texas children we do not know who they were but it had been said repeatedly that people presuming presumably texas children's wanted to get rid of even in millions and replace them a st obviously you have the four elements at the three or is it a page five it was related to the protected class it was made proximate in time to the decision that was made which is terminations and it was directly related to the decision that was made which again terminations so the question is was should see sheila jones a person who either made the decision had influence over the decision or under palace so that it's at least probative because she did influence she had influence over the jones for a short period of time six months and then we had daniel williams come in two weeks before the event that led to the terminations but with regard to ms jones being in a position to either make the decision was not on that bus after she want to hold lee clocked him to work she stated and testified in her deposition that she didn't recall she never heard that piece of information before that to her recollection she was not on the bus that morning but she wasn't spoken to until quite a bit after the event she didn't recall she said she did not remember that she didn't believe that she was on the bus i apologize she said that she when she was on that morning know she was she yes she claimed that she cocked and then she immediately took her break to go take her daughter something that she didn't question from home her daughter was a patient in a hospital attached by a walkway and ms williams does say that she came in through the there's a rear set of elevator bangs that leads directly to and that that evidence video evidence was evidently not looked at and that's her testimony and if i can wrap of the direct evidence quickly just in the interest of her that she was also telling her to go home and color her hair or don't come back and so there's abi there's significant evidence in the record to show that is jones did have disciplinary power over ms ms in line she's the one who interviewed ms eagle and in a the same same mind with regard to we need to replace the women at the cardiology desk with the spending employees the question is simply who is performing that act who fell to the axis sensually that let these winning go one who actually that decision who seized upon the opportunity to get rid of these people that they wanted to get rid of for a while essentially and in williams was the person who was most in arrest instrumental daniel williams was the person who was most interested mental  she performed the investigation she's also the one who said that she reviewed all of the documents she performed the e c r she also says that she made her decide her decision to recommend terminations in salis before she ever met with him  evidence that she is the decision maker the minutes of that sounds like evidence that she had input into an ultimate decision by another person is that sufficient to show that the williams is the decision maker for  provided by the defendant with regard to the decision maker that can create a material issue a fact and in this case in the e e o c statement and that williams is the statement which was presented approximately three months to three weeks as one of their defenses to this that and that williams fails to state the danielle williams is of the same protected class and she does not give any reason why daniel williams would discriminate against her there's no mention in the entire  conflict when he opens with well the implication that i have taken from this is that defendant is trying to rebut any inference of discrimination by saying no the decision maker was in the same class they've also made that argument in their brief and so to make that then they have to essentially identify de williams as the decision maker and on their brief they do it in the alternative in their ego see statement that's the only person they can post identifying and children's all kind of go together so for example when we're arguing that they're hiding who replace these people are hiding the fact that they were replaced or that they're obscuring who the actual decision maker is all this goes into the question of is this all worthy belief so those all go into the pretext issues but in addition are the documents that i've put in front of you i mean that at the end of which are just record excerpts of the key documents the defendant says it relied upon in the terminations of evil and the video still as well as you can see those are presented to you in exactly the form that we presented them to the two judge hoyt to the district court and what we've shown there is that the time records actually show that all of the activities of the day in question and the parking records show the same thing were very much in keeping with the way that things frequently happened in that williams explained that she clocked and before her parking our customers because her husband worked in the same area drop her off in the actually did it pretty frequently in the records before you show that that is the case she clocked in either before or within minutes of the parking card being used a number of times within the very small sample that we have the same with regard to the clock and records defendant keeps saying that egan was logged into that computer at the time that williams logged in but actually the e mail which i believe is the nd e mail the st e mail that you have in the states that the i t department is unable to determine even where williams logged in they believe it was on the in the west tower on the th floor now we don't williams doesn't and not she's the one who offered the information that she clocked in england's computer and her computer was always up and running to meet jones testified there was no problem with this she herself talked into it wherever she was closest when she started her shift she knew to make it jones knew of no policy which stated that you couldn't log in on alternate computers so looking and finally if you look at the images that's provided in the video still there's new clock in the background there's no timestamp there's not even a date stamp on that document so everyone is looking at this document and saying this is the smoking gun but that could have been taken any time any day during which even was working and as a result looking at those documents together and daniel williams stage that when she was making her recommendation and terminations the documentation was what she looked at she stated that yes to go into night that she had plucked williams and but the documentation was all she was looking at you have what she was looking at in front of you and only a person who would argue made that decision could find that evidence sufficient enough to terminate the employment of a seven year employee the discriminatory reason was that they wanted to place one or more hispanic workers at that desk they terminated dettori ego and in that williams and they did replace them with at least one hispanic employee we don't obviously we did not have to prove why they did that we have to prove that it was why they wanted someone of a different race we have to prove that that was that that was the end of this obviously discriminatory animus but as reeves v sanderson and other place cases  may peace court my name is ruthie white and i represent the apple in this case i along with my colleague michael number dany they know are here to dress the issues i will discuss the issues in regards to whether there was i think the record is clear that there was a comment made by a supervisor in two thousand and fourteen elec only that they want hispanics at the front desk no one knows who they are we do know they are not the decision makers in this case there was an interim of the crumley comment is that when that's the one you're talking about right now there's two that apt talk about the appellant allows and says is discriminatory indirect evidence and with the  appropriately aggress dressed in the issue that there was no deposition taken out of her nor was there deposition requested sheila jones according to annette williams in her deposition testimony the clinic was complaining because they were too slow getting the patients back to the doctors and they said the reason was they were interpreted in spanish and i had to call and get an interpreter because it can speak spanish she was jones at that time says will  sheila jones was an interim supervisor at the time of the terminations supervise was daniel williams and this term a nation had nothing to do with removing hispanics there's no evidence other than this comment this combination has to do with evidence that daniel williams ever made a comment about getting rid of ring in his pants no evidence that enrique gonzales talked about getting rid of them and replacing them with hispanic deposition testimony said i made the decision to terminate the miss england on their pillow decision maker issue we were talking about where there is evidence that could create a fact issue is through with the d williams with the decision maker and i the issue of the e o statement so i will tell that i want to ask the court to consider that the evidence and the record in this case is what was before the district court when he didn't grant the some judgment this is the st you can argue that it said the two little employees were terminated there wasn't a decision about our statement made about enrique gonzales and i think it was addressed because the charge talked about daniel williams and so in response to the charge alleging that daniel williams discriminated against them the position statement addressed the allegation of daniel williams they have this in this case of course is very clear that enrique gonzales meet the terminations station there's no evidence that he did not other than appellants theory that it must be daniel williams again if it was daniel williams the same evidence that mr gonzales considered is the same evidence that daniel williams considered i think this whole issue about who made the decision and primarily because the appellant in this case testified i didn't found the suit at all about anything th in this case which i think judge hoyt assume that a prime aphasia case already been established and so he did say a couple things in his opinion he said that the comments in this case are not indicative of racial animus and even if they were they weren't by the decision making that's a fact in this case and there's nothing that disputes that and dition only the one that sheila jones who they said did him make an influence on mr enrique  testified i did not consult or ask ms jones about the terminations then you know williams testified i did not consult or ask miss jones about the terminations miss jones only involvement in this case is that when they went to when daniel williams went to interview annette williams she wanted someone to interview appellant at the same time so they wouldn't get together and confer she asked miss jones we'll interview her mr jones coming is somehow influencing the decision maker given the comments in this case say that she was wanting her to keep her job so bottom line is daniel williams investigated server may not have caught who that person is it may have been on kiosk where you don't need to have an id to get an a on it or it could be something that happened where we just can figure out and pick out who he is what's important is in the n often well i tell you i point you to document three and in fact appellant used this document in their brief to say it wasn't unusual for ms williams to log in on missed the appellant's computer because she's done it all of these times the same argument can be run a as long as you in all this time because you were tarting and receiving a disciplinary record in january two thousand and twenty three of sixteen tories what's not in this document and like to point the court to it is another document that seventy nine that's miss egan's computer if you look in the record and find seventy four you'll also see alone with mr williams testimony that i've logged in and known on that gonzales testimony is basically saying mr jones and there's no evidence in this case that she is immaterial innocent all saw you on the show that takes you from the parking garage to the hospital she saw you between seven fifty and seven and eight o'clock which seems appropriate since the parking garage said your car came in at seven hundred and forty one if you look at the next document in this case there's a lot of fodder about we don't know what at the top you can tell they're telling security to view the video from seven am to eight am on june th two thousand and fifteen the pictures don't have a date on it but if you look at the bottom wor security is giving their response he says i see her entering west tower twenty from the elevator at approximately eight o'clock so the pictures don't have a date on but here think video and i saw her enter the lobby at eight o'clock she goes directly to i'm sorry i'm winning out of time but the corollary me just to finish this apparent map and so at the end of the paragraph it talks about there was an unknown comes in the elevator and a t m which is about two minutes or so after mr jones are on the show discovery period if she felt like she was not getting the discovery she needed or the information she needed it was her of responsibility to go to the district court or to file a motion in order to get whatever is after reviewing texas code and summary judgment motion of mrs eagle and apparently determined that she did not have enough evidence to respond but the proper procedure in that scenario would have been to file a motion for continu thanks one is the scheduling order issue in the papers there is the impression that a defense counsel serve to sleep file of the motion to continue and change the dates in there but i would just like to point out for the court that the record is is clear all depositions were scheduled in noticed in early august two thousand and eighteen which was within the original discovery period but just two weeks before the depositions i know july rd fifty thousand and eighteen mrs eagles counsel probably told us that she needed reschedule all depositions at that point that's when the became apparent that an extension was needed the joint motion was filed the same day that the joint motion was file for production that's the st time that this relatively large firm said that they missed e mails october th i sent a deficiency letter and counsel didn't see that e mail october th i asked for a conference october nd i asked for a conference october experienced that and want that we are not getting anything from them essentially and i have not experienced that before i shy it was naive attack on my part largely i'm comfortable with moving forward in trial without documents if they're going to have a difficult time explaining their absence but based on the affidavits provided by camping in solace in this case i fully expect their memories to fully come to life so because of that we're not asking the court to rule on the discrete portions of the motion to compel but merely to to remit it to the district court for consideration and also very briefly on the eagle and did state that if you can is always had any involvement in her terminations she did believe that he discriminated against her and that's the record at page ninety five there is no question that at william signed into victoria england's computer the question is to the extent  england signed into the computer at that same time but since there was no prohibition in signing on someone else's computer that really is a moot point but it does demonstrate the evidence here with regard to the video evidence again is more goes to williams but the documents say what they say there's no evidence that anyone looked at that desk at seven hundred and thirty two and can tell us exactly who was doing what  and with regard to the replacements again this just about to the prime facia case before i do that though i'm running out of time and i do want to go judge barksdale to your question with regard to kind of what does show pretax and i have a bit of a list that we rely on that we believe makes would lead a fact finder to determine that the defendant's proffered reason is not worthy of credence is false or not worthy of credence st of all and as i said these all kind of go together we have the very conflicting avenues with regard to who is the decision maker we have danielle williams saying that it was her gonzalez saying having a difficult time in his deposition is we put it out there brief of even explaining why he made the decision to terminate and we have the contradictions regarding replacements and only one who could do it and because of that they terminated her after seven years of employment she added virtually spotless employment in history we didn't get her performance reviews defendant did not produce those but the only disciplinary and i would have to look at that in this in that motion i i cannot tell you for sure but i can imagine that i did not but i don't represent you that i did without putting my eyes on it and the in the only disciplinary action was that january th teen attendance issue and then finally the statements even if they are not direct evidence are probative under palace soda because miss jones was involved in the investigation she did confer with miss williams and she was their most recent interim supervisor and for those reasons we believe coupled with the questions about replacements and the issues with regard to compared or in texas children's refusal to produce anyone else who was terminated for the same reasons we believe that there is sufficient evidence for