will wait until the courtroom clears quite a crowd here correct the vacancy announcement specify the requirements of the open position and the policy manual specify the behavior requirements of the selecting official during the  selection process and the defendant chose to disregard both and what the point of contends was an effort to favor of the selection of the younger ramble a the qualifications specified in the announcement had to cover for areas of aircraft carries fatigue damage tolerance fracture mechanics and advance materials in developing the technical questions for the end interview examination so she has the selecting official chose to limit the technical questions for the  interview examination by excluding advanced materials the advanced materials of composites an area of great familiarity with the plaintive was omit that's that's one of four and the defendant chose not to include anything about advanced materials in the in the technical questions that were presented so if that 's true then what's to believe that it was on the basis of your age or you ra e the the defendant was well aware of my you could call it expertise and in the in the area of advance for two to have an aircraft built and so doing it has to be built to the specified it has me but it has to meet all the requirements that is that that you know the government specif  if if if if if it's assumed that the criteria for the examination should reflect the requirements of the vacancy announcement the  that the that the questions somehow favorite him and you say that they they disfavored you because you didn't know or that you didn't ask an area that you thought they would ask but does do you allege in any way shape or form that the questions favorite the discriminatory if you don't even know what the level of knowledge of your of the other candidate was perhaps he was equally deficient with regard to that knowledge well or equally strong with regard to the knowledge that you had and might have done just as well as you would have done had those that area been questioned about that's true but you have to assume that and no you have to allege sir you have to allege representing yourself yes but you have to allege you have to understand why i just doesn't go on a hunch  that the failure to promote occurred under the circumstances giving rise to the and friends of discrimination the interview examination if the interview examination was fabricated as a pretext to legitimize the selection of ram a law case as the your brief and i think we understand your argument the argument is that the absence of these questions about it dance materials from the interview process to the interview process out of the parameters of the vacancy announcement and we can we should infer discrimination on that basis yes morning your honour's my name is rachel ballad and i'm an assistant united states attorney for the eastern district of new york representing the defendant appellee the cracks of mr duckett's claim is that the interview questions were somehow unfair to him but as your honour's noted there is just a lack of evidence that the interview questions in somehow discriminated against mr duckett based on his race or  wall yes the vacancy announcement first reference advanced materials the record is clear that mr easton who mr duckett says did not discriminate against him was the chief scientific and technical officer for the area at issue for t in damage tolerance and he testified that the questions in fact did deal with advanced materials mr duckett himself at his deposition testified it s a forty two in the supplemental append that the questions did cover advance composites in general which is the area that mr duffy contends is his specialty so looking at this objectively it was a uniform interview process the questions were devised by mr easton not mr sosias who is the person that mr duckett contends discriminated against him the question answers to the questions were provided and workshop materials that both the person selected mr duckett had in advance of the interview and mr duckett said that he had reviewed those materials before his interview as your honor noted there are four questions on crack growth that mr duck e no reasonable jury could find that there was an inference of discrimination in the way that the interview process was conducted based on his race or age the f a a is is free to devise its own if i have nothing further if you have questions composites so that the this as far as i was concerned the the the the entire scope of the announcement was not covered in the technical questions thank you thank you beth and thank you for your patience with the calendar today that's the last place on the calendar you know lasted for