three when mr york is there asked what is the did he believe plaintiff knowingly permit a clerk to work off the clarke clock he said yes he's then asked what is the basis for that belief that the others aren't the real reason if he's lying about some of the reasons mean certainly one outcome could be in this disputed sparked as to whether there was an admission or not one outcome by the jury could be that it was simply a misunderstanding we lose another reason melissa prince is that it's a known law that he never admitted it he knew he never admitted it he asserted he admitted it for the reasons that we set out in our briefing to effectuate the terminations that is a reasonable inference not the only reasonable inference but we get the benefit in our favor at this stage as to this graver that you raised regarding the changing of the time clock we in the fact that plaintiff was responsible for the time clock again i believe there's a question of the that we addressed that issue in our reply brief an argument is essentially this that that the knowledge that our client worked alongside mr clarke and the knowledge that our r clarke had worked that he made the appropriate corrections to the time clock which he explained may be necessary as a normal part of the function due to the change in  the midnight the fact of changing from midnight the time clock now there's a question of fact they argue that's not how that worked but that's a question of fact for the jury to decide mister mr wilson's testimony is that he only knew of one time he was in the store and working his testimony is that he did not know he was working off the clock and if he did not know to what that portends is that he's had to make corrections in the past but he never allowed him to work off the clock knowingly is when he later becomes aware that there's an issue if you correct it as it is supposed to be done under the policy you're not supposed to what exactly is being referred to he states elsewhere that he does not know he is working off the clock so given the objection of argumentative and given the i don't argue ambiguity to this line of questioning which does start out nasty forty there is still a question of fact when you look at his entire testimony his entire testimony includes a refusal of knowingly allowing him to work off the clock and the refute and refuting the admission that he did so other two again if there is more than one reasonable inference at this stage we don't have to disprove the one reasonable inference that goes in defendant's favor we have to raise a reasonable inference that goes in our favor and if there is such a essentially argument in the reply brief that that mr welton properly edited in made corrections to time cards as was required by the process by the nature of those time it in that case that there was poor performance and that they could say there wasn't more performance even though there was evidence of some good performance so in mr hunt's argument fails because maybe there is more than one inference allowing mr clarke to work off the clock based on the things that he knew and one of the problems with mr hunt's argument factually is when you look at you are when nineteen which was put in the record  you look at adjustment supposedly need for the computer going over midnight if you look at the handwritten adjustments on that page the first one is for tuesday december seventeenth two thousand and two mission that we're not going to talk about here but that conflict the fact that mr wilson told him that he admitted that he knew that geoff clark was working off the clock but then he does go on is just graber had pointed out manager is not is not establishing is not a spouse the manager has an improper purpose if the manager relies on any portion of the record not the entire record that he's aware of and that's assuming that that talked about no excuse me a knowing lie and i think the court needs to focus on what evidence is there other than the testimony that mr scott points to that mr wil being correct even if mr rose from three times deny knowing us all of the other things that mr york knew about mr wilson's supervision of mr clarke about the hours they were working about their his responsibilities about the company policy  where there's a mixed record the managers can pick out part of that record and believe it and just regard the other part and that is not a reasonable well he actually he turned the information over to h r and h r instructed him to terminate so he didn't he didn't arrive at any conclusion he simply made a statement that's under review here league still has to be objectively reasonable i think the belief has to be objectively reasonable and i think it is on these facts and it has to be sincerely held there's no evidence there's no evidence in this record of any ulterior motive of this district manager for getting rid of somebody who's been trained who's running something that stores just opening everything is is in play and suddenly he you know the company decides to fire somebody there's no evidence reasonable belief in the big three case it was a question of performance and a mixed record and if i made one last point the terminations is relevant not necessarily to the defamation claim itself but it's lie about the admission it's a zero tolerance policy regarding not working off the clock if he lies about the admission he guarantees determination thank you