well and that's why we're hiring you know another words if they have it just seems odd to read the record to suggest that we knew you weren't taking it but simply because you didn't tell us that's why we fired unless you think the record shows that clearly the record shows that the only reason they gave for the termination was not telling the hotel about the check and fee not actually taking it and  the three hundred dollars i mean he took the check yes distributed twenty seven hundred and three hundred feet now what i'm saying is it's not as if the employer is saying  so good faith is incompatible with something criminal as as an investment he was never asked to return the money we have never apologized to the client this was just a standard fee that he took for these kinds of tournaments and that you took for the same client the prior was allowed to do it without any kind of interference from his employer so that leads to the reasonable inference that he didn't have to inform at this time either as he never had and there never been any problem with th coronated golf tournaments all over the island and for each tournament he got paid around two hundred fifty to three hundred dollars what about the check was for three thousand correct on the check was in his name yes reason for terminating yes ok on its face it has nothing to do with age correct ok for you to win you have to somehow show that that reason doesn't reasoning doesn't hold up because he didn't have to report this because this was standard practice because the evidence gives way to a reasonable jury inferences this was standard practice and what's the standard practice that's what i'm trying to figure out what evidence what is in the record that shows they knew that it was standard practice to put yourself as the recipient of the check said in his source to him is there any evidence that they knew in the past he had been paid not only his fee for the p g a but more money than that was written to him as the check one will embrace  them self have been done previous fact benefit when him he was just following his standard practice so the record will show that in the past he checks were written for much more than his be to him record shows that he had so why isn't that a problem because the defendants representation is you've got to check for more than just your fee and didn't tell us and then you're saying in the business and your practice  so clearly the practice is that was actually used in the tourney and that actually that to his termination was not standard practice it was to find out what had happened the year before and there is certainly no evidence on the record that when him had any knowledge that mr thomas had coordinated that other tournament or hadn't received any fees or had received any checks help me at this once the employer comes back with the reason so it's not the real reason my right about that is correct you are on there and on the list of good practice manners is that if there was a standard practice of this being ok that might provide a basis for thinking it's not the real reason but since there is no standard practice you say we have no reason to doubt that the real reason for determining him was the reason they gave which was does this that is correct there is that and then the fact that it your position is there's no evidence that ramos in this instance was being treated any differently than he had been in the past and there's no evidence in the record any similarly situated persons ramos is being treated differently proves vive upon their hands on the evidence that he had a nondiscriminatory reason for that time ation what she did if they had investigation it concluded that mr thomas had actually taken a check to his name for three thousand dollars without and then actually took three hundred compensated it so obviously the evidence on the record contrary to what plaintive is alleging the only other thing your honor is in this case they are claiming that and i'm quoting them they say they're real discriminators and this case they to cover the terminations of an older employee the problem is that there is simply no evidence of this criminal to me and of us williams from joseph a from bargain in fact mr nunn was actually testified that he had no problem with anybody at the hotel that he didn't think that those three persons harbor any ill will towards him he actually said that he did not know mr o said he had never met her mr joseph that idea who it was she had no idea what his age was she had she didn't review his personal file before she actually supported the terminations decision so there is absolutely no evidence that any of these three persons and particularly mr williams w ultimate decision maker had any discriminatory animas against him and that's the main problem in this case after one of them was able to establish that non discriminatory reason for his termination there has been no evidence that the real reason for that dismissal was actually discrimination affluence also mentioned that he was substituted by younger employees and what that may be relevant in other types of cases in for example cases where among other employees existent employees makes absolutely not more probable that he was discriminated on account of his age and finally the other reason that they actually mention is what was discuss before whether or not he was terminated for not telling or for actually taking the money the fact of the matter is that he had the client compare that check to his name that he went to the bank that he changed it that he took the three hundred dollars and that it was basically by cheer luck that somebody that the comptroller of the company learned and actually noticed that was suspicious normally you don't have an employee receiving a check for three thousand dollars from a client and that's why  engine and sued it was not because nobody had any this commentary and it was a can't sell clearly happened just because they had noted that that chart was made to his name and that's when they started asking questions and that's when he said yeah i actually took this think i just want to speak a little bit about the actual investigation the only reason that they even we have even found out about this track is because he innocently asked the association to deliver the track to him so it would be forwarded to him i'm also i think in good faith i truly believe he was he was doing the right thing and we should give him a warning and a whole the suspension for not telling when i want the check and fee which but you need to show that it's not the reason corrector are bad reason is not a discriminatory reason that necessarily but there has to be a reason even if it's a bad reason  second job to win him in the end never asked and so that's enough for a jury to infer that he didn't need to do this and therefore the reason i just nonsense and it's not even a bad reason it's no reason at all so it doesn't the feet  the presumption of discrimination