confirm i have a lot of issues the briefs themselves indicate that there were multiple points for relief almost every single one of them were summarily judged by the district court and we found a lot of problems with those reversible error in many i've got roughly twelve minutes with deal with all of my issues which feels a bit unfair but i am going to try to reserve three minutes for rebuttal so i've narrowed down the focus of this oral argument to three major mr lemmy had been discriminated against while working at barrow on the basis of her gender and on the basis of her national origin and that there was retaliation and initially to the district court's concern the timeframes were too broad so the attached to the complaint for hard for us rather than just having it contained that's yes your honor it was for example part of the memorandum that missile emmy's submitted in june of two thousand and eleven where promotion the district court didn't back a value wait a little bit but what the district court gift and this is the most immediate road to reversal is the status of discrimination that missile let me was working under at all times during her employment and including the three hundred days covered indisputably covered by the e e o c charge mr levy says this is sort of the gold good old fashioned discrimination case where women are simply paid less than men and missal let me was paid l sixty thousand dollars two hundred twenty thousand dollars less than similarly situated men at all times now that status of discrimination working doing similarly situated work doing the same type of work and being paid sixty t doing and oh by the way even though she didn't have that title she should be paid to say well yes in fact she was given the menial work but she was still expected to do the work that the rest of the team were doing what happened was they worked in a team so it might be like the five of us my partner and the three of you and me we're on a team and they all do the same type of work they'll go to a meeting they all have to do analysis and so forth but ms so let me in addition was given what was this menial operational work which was  is that you have to prove that gender is the sole reason for the adverse treatment that face the reason we brought the people packed plane was complimentary to the titles of the discrimination claim it's easier to prove that the titles of the discrimination claim because the standard  district court confused the analysis in this way the district court in citing burlington vs eller which is a sexual harassment case decided by the supreme court wrestling with the idea of what type of conduct is actionable sexual harassment the district court insisted on finding that there was a significant change in employment status during this three hundred dates and the district court said i don't see a significant change in employment status during the time period by the chart but if you are underpaid relative to a similarly situated male counterpart and it and that's at least a debatable proposition there's disputed issues of fact as whether they are similarly situated if you underpaid during that three hundred days and there's no change in your status you still have an actionable title seven discrimination case in fact the court evil the one hundred sixty four civil rights act was aimed at preventing disparities in the terms of the conditions of employment you don't have to further prove that you've been demoted or fired and you don't even have to prove that you didn't get promoted when you should have been during that period of time status discrimination is  get more training more experience to be able to do this you know she did not say that that that a look that is wrong what she said why she is willing to pay classes when the human resources director said you should take classes this is a male dominated a vir classes she says i'm willing to do that she took a class which taught female professionals the to do better in a male dominated industry these were these were independent make her remedies a discriminatory environment but she was willing to do that it's not like she told them to take a hike get promoted product a portfolio from the purple associate to an analyst in the first place she certainly didn't need that kind of time and she was every bit as qualified as the men who themselves that you have satisfactorily in analysts position doesn't say anything about whether you were qualified to do a different job that would be a promotion so well i think it's great that she was getting four out of five on the rankings on the current job i fail to see how that's particularly helpful in seeking out whether there's evidence that she was qualified to be a portfolio manager  with respect is that you're calling it a different bob and i think it's a description of the promotions here is really essential as to me it was unusual this is an opening for a promotion where they say we're going to have a new portfolio manager submit your application will do an interview there will be a competition rather you've got the five of us in a room some of us are portfolio managers some of us are analysts and jim moore who's the director of the ai department on his own within his complete job description the says you don't she did from time to time not nearly as much as the men did get assigned to go through it through diligence trip that's what they called them so you could go talk to equal opportunities to volunteer do the portfolio on what these with the men are doing i want to have the same opportunity i can't advance unless you give me these chances to travel and instead you've got me doing cashflow data entry and things like that she's got two degrees in mathematics and particular sign what i say i will do and what can more aspirants me to do are two different things she was always willing to do it i guess you could raise your hand and say i'll do it but it is going to send children or cases that are not even there the difference between summer intern with no real outside work experience was promoted several times if tara but then reached a point where she was not cut out to take it to the next level in the subsequent job she claims she wants she was not because based on what she alone said about her qualifications compared to what are the qualifications in the records for the job descriptions and the undisputed testimony of others who interacted  zero seven and look at what those are those are objective qualifications those are things that include specific abilities that she needs to show that she has and when you compare those to her own deposition testimony in her own answers to written promote claim but she shows that she is not qualified which is why when you look for instance in her growth in her performance reviews she's continually saying i need more experience i need things to d or to be put on the track to become portfolio manager she is recognizing that she is not currently qualified to perform in the role of a portfolio manager i mean you say these are objective criteria and certainly somewhat subjective maybe someone objective but when you look at what in four zero six and four zero seven the actual qualifications and essential functions of these jobs are they are quite objective for instance can she rank investments in partners it but what it cascades to your honor is that she doesn't then develop the other skills that are objective within those essential functions and qualifications because she hasn't shown for instance in being vocal that she has the ability to understand income really still get the same result so briefly i i would like to go through because i think some of these things are legally and factually blurred a couple of the claims that are not on right she is focused on the the nineteen eighty one race retaliation is one that she's appealed and the second one that is a bit on appeal is the first amendment retaliation which i believe relates to gender of course for gender and for this limited three hundred day window she tries to do three things to overcome the fact that she cannot show an adverse action none of these are successful first in attempt to show because she has no of discrimination within this window she tries to argue that there is some kind of continuing violation doctrine that applies here we know that the wrongly know that the morgan chase does not apply the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to what was brought people opportunities better that she didn't speak up as much as other people but that's not an adverse employment action that's at most a near inconvenience that's held not to be an adverse employment action or title seven now third we just addressed tried to say for the first time on appeal that underpaid and that that was title seven discrimination onto the failure to promote claim a partial of title seven keep in mind this is also limited to that three hundred day premise she used of appeal and therefore sway the misunderstanding no but to clarify what she said was that there was a continuing failure to promote you in fact did not put it in the argument section responding to specific defense i think a fair just reading of the summary judgment pleadings in the complaint itself indicates that these were our primary arguments i mean the brief sixty five basic law we didn't miss of this it's definitely the whole point of it what i know about are but there's one point i want to make we didn't accidentally or has only attached to the c charge to the complaint we specifically did it was well written wit five pages of single spaced and it's incorporated in the complaint and through alice that there are allegations disparate hate itself even if you set aside for a motion that the different additional way she was