problems thank you please the court and council this case involves sinha who is a bradley university professor he was formerly the chair of his department and he was removed from his chair ship and denied a promotion two months after he filed a charge of discrimination sin has federal complaint centered on that he was demoted for opposing age discrimination and denied promotion two months after filing the discrimination charge we are appealing the grant of summary judgment some of the pertinent facts i want to bring to the court's attention are that he tried in a friendly way to talk them into it and when that didn't work read soon began to pressure campaign on since the to take actions that would make the older faculty members work life difficult for us and generally a pain to work around since i resisted all of those attempts and then he made a statement to rats and he said well as long as i'm chair i don't think these people are going to retire shortly after that one of the professors in the department hatfield there was a scheduling error seven how try to fix it by state that we have really or read the brief and you don't have that much time so let's go ok let's start with some questions ok how could we conclude that the title mine investigation that found dysfunction in the department and influence the provost's decision was the product of a team rats bias when the title nine investigators interviewed ten person including our plaintiffs and considered emails as well had ok two points on that st of all we submitted af from i believe three of the professors in the department who were also interviewed and they indicated that there was not dysfunction in the department second the notes of the investigators bears out that rats then did a hit job on since he told them that he was going downhill he could not handle his department responsibilities he was a dictator he wouldn't listen to reason and it's our view that he's so poisoned that when your immediate supervisor  is you know essentially saying you're not up for the job and you need to be removed that that had a significant influence on the report and i think you talked about how do you how do you get not perform the job and needed to be removed his glasses agree that there's no evidence of bias on the part of the provost we did not have evidence that he made age animist statements that is correct you know any evidence of by not just the age statement but beyond that i didn't see anything in the record that you were arguing that the the the results of the title not investigation and the results from the faculty grievance committee those are pretty significant  but that's not supposed to impact the promotion discussion that's there's no policy that says what you do is dean impacts your promotion the other point i want to make is that president redshirting saying that they can't consider that  if you're being considered whether or not to be promoted and you have an investigation that was conducted by a committee that says your department that you had been running was dysfunctional i think the point would be that they never i didn't see anything in the record thing that was a fact that couldn't be decided and seemed very relevant but they actually the coyote actually stated that the reason why he did not support the promotion was not because of the investigations but because supposedly cyn had to not put in a couple of letters of recommendation the nd go around this week what rights wire get that's were i think your case runs into some trouble because the deposition admission is that it was with regard to the two thousand and sixteen page forty two he's got before them these these two exhibits the title nine investigation and the faculty grievance committee and says the answer from cali is we needed to  appoint an outside department chair in order to try to move the department a more positive direction is that a conclusion you reached on your own with yes with the help of these documents so the sequence doesn't seem to line up in the manner that you're advocating  what i would point out to you is that yes you're quoting us the part of the deposition that talked about the two thousand and sixteen deposition but again we put into our brief the deposition testimony talking about the that was over amuck by to his record and would show that the complaint actually address the two thousand and seventeen promotion decision not the twenty six team one it's really important what i would have to point to is the fact that in the right to sue letter the right to sue letter it references the charge number for the nd promotion denial the other thing i would say about the trial court again the trial court said that rats and didn't make a recommendation to remove sin chair but that's exactly what he told the grievance committee that he was using the grievance in order to engineer history move will look here and here is our problem he didn't mention th had a higher burden to be promoted and when he was denied he did not you know file a charge it was only the sequence of events occurring after that where we get into  the issue with but this collapse the challenge here is that your complaint alleges the denial of the promotion that was applied for in two thousand and sixteen and even when the defendant raised the issue in their answer that you had not filed a timely charge of discrimination you never sought to amend your complaint to make clear that you to but if it's a scrivener's error the issue is were was the defendant on notice of it so was there some prejudice if it had just been a scrivener's there in the whole case had been about the two thousand and seventeen may be in a different position but when the defendant pointed it out in their answer you didn't attempt to cure it and when your client was asked during his deposition about the case he specifically said the case was about the denial of the two thousand and sixteen patients for promotion given that i don't know how you could say that the defendant would be on notice that this was about the two thousand and seventeen case which is what this really comes down to than i would i would have to refer the court to the other portions of sin has deposition where he was specifically asked about the denial of the twenty t promotion and even if you know you conclude that with regard to the promotion and i know you're saying there's a you know a problem here in admitted at least so you know there's still the other part of the were there in iraq to tory responses reflecting that the focus was on the two thousand and seventeen will move back to utah for recall thank you i would just like to make a couple of points and that is that st of all he counsel comments that this department is a mess but i would point to the fact that for that same academic year twenty million one hundred and fifty two thousand and sixteen every voting member of the department voted unanimously for nd you know counsel wants to point out that well all rats and did was be interviewed but he said and told a pack of lies about what's in how did didn't do and how he wanted to be removed you know it would be no different than if well i'm interviewing your supervisor and he says well i saw joe who's in a minority i think i saw him try to steal you know some equipment and then the minority individual is fired how can you not say that there has not a bad act and unless you have any other questions that's the conclusion of my rebuttal thank you ms go off thank you mr cole who's the case we take it under advisement