to join the others here here we believe that the trial court incorrectly ruled on appealing this motion for summary judgment and simply ask this court to remain on this case back to the trial court with some instruction so that the parties have a full opportunity to conduct the one that appeals to the most issue within the one that we feel that the trial really misinterpreted that really rooted it's just they'd decided on this after stent put in the fact that they basically based their whole analysis and tainted their whole analysis so much so that it didn't even go on to review the other factors that were in question since this prong is the one that we think that trial court's decision most hinged on it's the one that i'm going to focus the most on during the majority of my argument instructive here and this court has the ability to lay precedent and we see no reason why there needs to be a distinction between this case and employment cases appellant cite edge cases that were not employment discrimination related discrimination against white persons as well as non whites these are both not employed the cases their owners again if we're going to go back to the employment however the supreme case the president very unusual to have a white person claiming that another white person is discriminating there are many of those cases there are and it's more so that we're looking at the relationship between our client and her clientele which we said are thirty to forty percent which frequent the commercial space that she rented from the defendant and we're looking at the relationship between her and she was discriminated against because based on that association which isn't as few but i agree that there are a few cases that the district court also hold that even if there were a cognizable the possibility of a claim under nineteen eighty one or eighty two the you just proved that there was a material fact issue that he was terminations was racially motivated right so that is kind of what i want to go to so we filed our opposition the measure somebody before they discover sponsors that we had sent over were due the discovery that we later chester showed her you know and you know anti racism believes that her support for the african american community that was when he decided oh i don't want you he asked him asked her to sign a written thinks this is something that he said was  ordinary course of business it's important to know them is just or has been a tenet for multiple years beforehand she was never asked to sign a written lease specifically if we're going to look to those are several sponsors we asked them to produce any written leases they produced to written lease i also forget was did you make a motion for further discovery we did not ok did you did your plaintiff directly contradict what contradictions she essentially did say this is not why you know this is just an excuse like this this is now why he wanted to doesn't matter particularly what she said his reaction was to or trying to say that he was acting in a racially discriminatory manner we feel that that's just a cover up that's pretty well i know what you feel what is the evidence we think that that evidence that they're just there's a discriminatory  in the actions that he portrayed that he of mediately to ask her to sign a lease and get all this insurance which no other tenants had to our beliefs that she had never been asked to before as soon as she shows this controversial  controversial partly the sign was controversial and because it was showing support for the african american community and support for equality that and in fact when he asked please take that down and made just their com i mean even grammatically if you can call that kind of sign and grammatically it's somewhat ambiguous if it had been a song and it said racism so like i hate you know like stop jaywalking or something because the sign means negative just so you know since you sign is a double negative and i think i understand more so i  brief they say you know mr reno was concerned because he had other african american tenants and they might think that this meant that he didn't support them or something like that and that doesn't even make any sense at this point i'm also just going to briefly touched on and like you i have other questions but i was to briefly touch upon the association portion of the trial court's opinion in which they are essential he said that the level of association between plaintiffs clientele and herself that level doesn't really rise this burden of discrimination saying that because these employment cases don't apply because this relationship between an employer or an employee or an employee and a coworker that confidentiality privilege between her and her clients this is even a privilege that courts have given the same deference as between a husband and wife so this is not just this new you're doing here excuse me that there's very little mind through if your anus says i'm concerned that this will be misread in the people the neighborhood or other tenants will think that in fact this is in favor of the confederate flag or in favor racism says something derogatory about african americans  own able to dispute with mr raydon is saying that he was concerned about the danger to my overall building if the people misread the signs just what would you point us to as really supporting that you have something to overcome at this stage which is all the evidence that was available at that time that you asked for that you have your proven enough to create a tis basically lend to the fact that there is more information out there for instance and possible witnesses they have listed all these people that i've seen for years against racism for which mr chester founded that doesn't really make any sense to us that kind of shows you know what's what's going on here why these people back are anti racism would be in support of this we're not really sure what's going on she is a prominent member in the safe in our parish for social eighty one or one thousand nine hundred two in that she is not a member of a racial minority under the first element there's no debate here or contradictory that this chester is not a nine minority she's a non employee caucasian woman bring suit for racial discrimination against a non modern already non employer caucasian man she's not a member of any racial minority she does not allege to have been discriminated against by a non caucasian majority in her claims do not fall within some of the limited exceptions for a cause of action for a non minority that being a retaliatory discharge by an employer due to her efforts to vindicate the discriminatory actions being taken against another nine against  other minority employee and she did not suffer any vicarious effects due to any employer discrimination against a minority and fellow employee in that regard judge no correctly found that the employment cases which miss chester almost one hundred percent are a lot upon far cause of action relevant and opposite again those cases involve scenarios where in a non minority plan was either discharged directly because of her efforts to vindicate a minority workers rights or suffered the vicarious effects of direct racial discrimination directed from the employer against a minority the key component in these cases is that there was always a minority individual who was being discriminated against on the basis of race that there's no just dispute that some of the association cases that the plaintiff is raising that will have to deal with absolutely one of the not employment cases also don't support any cause of action for mr chester the clearest distinction we can make from some of these few cases that the plaintiff cites each and every case again the minority and a plaintiff who suffer damages from discrimination directed directly or indirectly towards a racial minority again none of that is present in this case there's no racial minority involved in this case there's no r discrimination being directed damn directed whether inadvertently directly what have you against any racial minority and again there's no injury to miss chester in this case she wasn't affected she left the property amicably but discussing some of those because it would attract african americans and no debate that there are minorities being discriminated against on that basis and the corporation was affected because they couldn't build a construction site due to direct racial discrimination against the african american community many here we have there's something some related not construction but a different kind of business and she's saying it was early in the case but on summary judgment this thing thirty percent forty percent whatever it is you know record better than i do of my clients  minorities we are issues specifically says african american so this will close down this bitch business keep african americans coming through this area that's not all that much different is it from what is the distinction you would tell me from what you just described about the construction  case there's no question that case that the water service specifically admittedly refused to offer services to the african american community with no admission here but there is an allegation supported by maybe we'll have to decide some circumstantial evidence other than the affidavit where mr chester says that approximately thirty percent of our african american or clientele are african american there's no other evidence all she did was place a sign on her lease property is th that's the court said quote merely posting signs on the property is not enough that's coming from judge and ellen as rulings or alleged african american clientele if they exist didn't ask her to place that sign she doesn't claim any other specific affiliation with impact on the business and the clients that it was she still worked and she just moved to another property as i understand it and again she wasn't a victim she was asked to sign a lease she refused to sign the lease and under louisiana law which it doesn't  need to get to in his ruling that's a proper he gave notice of an eviction for her not signing a lease and getting insurance on the property which every other client every other tenant mr arena and his company have throughout say bernard parish commercial residential what white suppose she put up a poster with a confederate flag and mr raina had taken exactly the same actions it would make no difference whatsoever and i'm hesitant to jump into the not about race it's about protecting the integrity of the property that's correct and if you look at the sum total of evidence presented if you want to call it evidence at the at the summary judgment stage the only evidence other than argument of counsel  this was about a year and a half ago right yes around the same time the story around the same time that other writing racial writing was happening in baltimore other events were happening at the time so even if we assume in the light most favorable to the plaintiff that her it's her quote a mystery and is correct at face value that supports a legitimate reason for having her sign a lease and get insurance on the property there's no discriminatory intent there's no race involved in that whatsoever that is a huge distinguishing fact that would that would necessitate or dictate a summary judgment motion if this case were to proceed and we had to follow the next motion for to prove a legitimate not a store nondiscriminatory purpose so i don't want to jump ahead in the that lundy case this is a case where a less or directly told the tenants one of whom was a minority a mexican american that he would not allow african american tenants on the property that is completely distinguishable from this matter that case actually went to trial less or didn't testify or present any evidence or an aunt in his own defense and that's why the court found a willful intent to discriminate directly on the basis of race that is not at issue here and again no a vision ever occurred in this case mister  you look at the case where i think the quote on the cause of action for association comes in this home and for city of reading case that's a pennsylvania district court case that case cited cases in support of the association claim involving section one hundred eighty three employment retaliatory discharge cases which are distinguishable one nine hundred eighty five and title vi title seven gender discrimination cases which are just not applicable to this case this tester also cannot satisfy the second element of a cause of action under nine hundred eighty one or ninety two which is the intent to discriminate on the basis of race we look through all of the filings at the summary judgment stage in the trial court the word intent be oh the circumstantial evidence are you saying that less mr renu admitted some fairly clear fashion that want to run off but people that there's no evidence that we take the circumstances  association cases that you've been assigned citing have all been ones where there was a direct threat that if you associate in other words this is that this is a crime of speech by necessity association right and that's a fair way to look at it and those cases you have the threat against a non minority they these are not those are not inferential cases those would not be instrumental i suppose your honor and in this case the only summary judgment evidence that was presented to prove intent was that quote that we were discussing earlier that's what i'm saying the only again you know what i have i'm not saying that you could never infer what you have but the nature of an association claim is i don't like who you're associating with and you do that if it's you should say not in the employment context where you have other things at play i suppose you're you know the only way you can do that is by you're you're  saying something that's crazy i don't think we have any evidence of that even circumstantial evidence to prove a racial discriminatory intent in this case he asked her to sign a lease which he refused to do that said he didn't  exactly there's no discriminatory intent that can be proven or shown circumstantial or otherwise by a less or being concerned that a sign could in invoke violence on his property and that is the reason even if reason that reason he here that's the reason he gives in the plainest quote which is the sum total of evidence or support for this which is hearsay and can't be considered under the garcia case anyway but let's just assume it would be admissible in these proceedings the quote admits that mr arena was concerned about i think he used the term someone's going to buy my building cause damage to the building so what the very quote with the plaintiff concedes is the part is what they are using to prove circumstantially inferentially intent supports a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and on that basis can mail allege anything and i mean can you really say that it's a genuine issue of fact if the fact is that thirty percent of her clientele are african american and she's been there for years can suddenly something that has been ok for years be transformed into racial intent that she was you know i think i think i agree with  in the in the hypothetical you just raised that the landlord is saying i'm concerned about actions i'm concerned about minorities for no other reason than them being minorities here that's not the case he didn't even ask mr iemma didn't even ask mr s to remove the sign all he said was sign a lease he didn't say please don't bring african americans on the property there are other african american tenants or one of his tenants which i believe is right next door close by to mr misjudges unit was a the wife of a local rapper by the name of juvenile so there are certainly african american tenants in the building and i don't think our facts come anywhere close to that hypothetical to answer a question under that under that type of that possibly you're on top of but those facts are present here  unless there are other questions from the court i suppose i would close i would just say mr ryan and his family are in the courthouse today they have been citizens business leaders members of the st bernard parish community for thirty years and more many many decades they've taken great personal offense to being accused of racially motivated actions in this case they've taken great interest in and defending their interests and their legitimate business reasons in this case which is another reason why they're here today there isn't a scintilla of evidence in the record to suggest or even remotely infer that mr arena discriminated against mr chester on the basis of race or on the basis of any alleged association that she had with minorities all mystery and i did in this case was asking the cheshire to us to sign a lease and to get a chance on the property as all of his tenants including his many african american tenants did as a fundamental legitimate matter of various items personal or otherwise in there and then we have these these commercial units one of which was miss chester's unit ritual businesses people walking by go into different doors it's a strip mall type of commercial establishment if tenants in that building there perhaps more going around i'm sorry i don't have that exact figure rick but i think the  chief and with the evidence that is in the record if we can call it that to he asked that she retained five hundred thousand dollars of insurance which she actually ended up getting a million dollars of insurance so she complied with that request but she didn't make him the co pay it so she apparently felt it was worthwhile for herself to well i mean if you're going to say that we he was so concerned that this was going on that this building need to be insured because this is going to happen because of the signage which she then proceeded to take down she complied with that she said that she would sign a written lease she just didn't she refused he wanted to be also be able to pre approve all signage that would be posted in the future she also would not comply  court that the purpose of the statutes in the employment context serve as a fundamental recognition that certain people in certain classes should be protected and should not be discriminated against discrimination is so frowned upon no matter the context it shouldn't be a matter that we're looking at employment contacts way when told my lord contacts it's public policy that behind this that we should simply prohibit eliminate discrimination and whether we're going to go back to this intent factor thing yeah let's go back to the  business for years a large number of her clientele are african american and everything was fine everything was fine until she started applying to stand up but if the man was somehow offended about african americans he could return you know the lease has a charm he could have refused to renew it years before right correct well the next on the she did try to pay rent he did refuse it he refused to take the rent well that was because she didn't comply she didn't but it's correct and if it seems to mean most landlords have a right to to expect a written lease i think that what lends most to the intent is first of all it's our belief that there are no other building especially now that we're saying that there was eight and you would think that someone who has been there for years would know if there were other african american ted and she said in her affidavit that she did not know any others the wife of the rapper i don't know i'm saying that these three things that basically hinge on this intent is that one that we believe that there are no other african american tenets to he asked her to take the sign down as a landlord i understand also there are no other written pieces until this time until she stowed her support there was no problem exactly when you're saying you know we went in years and years with thirty to forty percent of african american clientele coming in and out there was no issue until this exact moment when she basically purported and showed her support for the african american a landlord might think would be provocative in a time of great unrest and destruction promptly in some places he that's the only new ingredient here not the signs personally but that the signs might be inviting not it just kind of brought to light the two feelings of both parties i think that it made it more obvious and you know maybe i don't know as something what i mean i know that he was close by but maybe he wasn't completely aware of her beliefs in that and that aspect and once this came to light