question is what evidence do you have that elkins was motivated by age discrimination with regard to your description of the disparate treatment claim is based on the fact that the recruitment produced twenty seven qualified applicants home only one was over the age of forty because it was based on two institutions that had an old age of four under the age of forty i thought there were doesn't doesn't say anything about the fact that he was hired is not a negative inference law on my part because i believe that the issue in this case was this was one of the just didn't want to work with an older woman that if they did not use their practices the pulled would have been much more favorable to older people did you have any evidence of that sort or yes that's just common sense because i didn't see anything statistical about what would have happened if they had not used their practices well they reap their recruitment primarily target suggest that your blog specifically complained about the social security administration practices well we all do too well to do that i don't think that's come up blog specifically complained about the social security administration's practices  my question to start with is a yes or a no question do you agree that there is nothing in the record that you can point to where you allege that your blog complained about the social security  selection and he offered a multitude your honor and none of that have anything to do with age counsel i'd like you to focus on for the disparate impact claim the fact that the advertisements are or that the job announcements was a score and a law school i mean isn't that enough to survive this kind of emotion and where they're not publicly advertise that they're in the except service so there isn't the kind of public advertising it's like for a legal assistant position and the two places say that older workers are impacted she must offer some sort of citizen girl evidence to link these policies to excluding older workers and i think  would have been something else and then maybe the other side comes back with some reasons is there anything in the record that as any other reason that is was the last little cheaper  that young law graduates would be more malleable or would be easier to train for something about sort well again your honor we were just limited to what's in the nd amended complaint and so we cannot g the well i guess i guess actually really there may be for you are so assigning attorneys to the accepted service the social security administration has no standard sounds that was not made public well as i was not just that it wasn't at all in the sense that curve a lot of times you don't make things alike so that your uncle  the following allegation that the east policy is having a disproportionate impact on older workers that is too vague and ambiguous to show and entitle men to re  need that statistical link she's got to offer additional information explaining how is it so that older workers are excluded as a result of these policies so even generally known or could be an urge on a twelve the six motion that the people at the law school and the peace corps are are all are younger than say people in their forty's that's not enough even if that's the only place the announcements go with no public announcement you still are saying you need some sort of statistical allegation to survive a twelve  six no matter what the common sense or evidence is as to the limited targeted nature of the targeted groups i believe that's what the supreme court cases of smith and wat are yes and i'll agree with you if you're going to talk about younger members of the bar association and that might be a little closer to getting married than what we have here but i don't think it gets us across the threshold