contracting organization thirty car that women had complained about that discrimination that that discrimination had been addr complain complain about sex discrimination in the organization was acting reasonably so this is the that this is the is a supervisor at the time that the claim of discrimination was original claim of discrimination was made which was based on a non selection that  the the interview went selection process that occurred in a nine hundred ninety seven that would have been the first opportunity and as the as a as a  she had no that she had knowledge of the discrimination complaint and in fact the evidence shows that she had the original discrimination complaint and actually had been interviewed in connection with to all the flight chiefs including mr ryan and the fact that mr wright that ever evidence that the flight chiefs went to management for approval of their selections in combination activity and then at some point in the future not immediately on the heels of that act but at some point of that in the future months or years some plans which valley authority act it's a very very different situation this is really the first opportunity  that the individual who was claimed earlier in the invisible discrimination complaint to be an alleged discriminating official and was interviewed in that this is the first opportunity so to speak for that me please the court assistant united states attorney karen shelton for the secretary of the air force your honour's this case is about opinion that she was better qualified for the contract and specialist position at issue and she says she's not the only one who have that opinion didn't she get a higher score on you or your client matrix when the person who was selected by one point yes your honor well isn't that evidence some evidence that your client viewed  as just a teeny bit better qualified your honor in this case all of the candidates that were not for the position were considered qualified for the position and the decision maker in this case between the discretion to select any  fact that's true but that's not the that's not the question i asked your client set up the matrix and so presumably it reflected your client's own view of how because in fact two individuals scored even higher than both the plaintiffs and the ultimate select person cranks we saw they were even more qualified but that still doesn't take away from the reality of ranking between this individual on the person who was hired westmore promoted your honor the fact that patricia ryan selected someone who is not the most qualified on the matrix is not evidence that plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of gender that two people that score higher than both the plaintiffs and craig sweet were both male and in this case that actually reinforces the stated reason by patricia ryan that there was something unique about craig sweet experience that made him the best candidate with this position is not a jury argument though i mean i think the difficulty i have is the procedural posture if we were here after a jury's verdict in your client's favor i'm not sure we'd be here at all but the question is whenever there is a tribal issue of fact not whether all tomorrow you can had said that for somebody to get this job they had to have a civilian level to sort of acacia and she had that and at the time of his appointment mr sweet did not and that's just disappoint from the matrix r some of them are potentially relevant because it's not a part of the formal job description point of doesn't get to rely on the lieutenant colonels the lieutenant colonel statement as any of our evidence she can rely on pla it's a remark about the preferred qualifications for the job which doesn't have anything to do with discrimination and of itself it has to do with what kind of person was best suited for this position and and i guess is there evidence that he had no authority to consider of the criteria for that job i mean i'm not sure why it is that she can't rely on his talking about where i was within a close miking relation to the decision maker the defendant ryan is above is above patricia ryan you know overall hierarchy and how many levels of i'm not certain of all of them but at least two at least two but the fact that the plaintiffs that colonel cruz might the person making allegedly making the statement and again we don't have karl cruz march testimony in this respect plaintiff is relying on announced it maybe something from which we could run it in french but in order to distance yourself from this you keep saying that there's no evidence i think this is i think these things are evidence if admissible antagonism that plaintiff had spit in the plaintiff's food that supervisor had circumvented protocol in denying her transfer request had made sexual advances to her that there were substantial specific circumstances in that time she actually left the base and we have no evidence of a pattern of antagonism john was that between the time she filed the ninety five complaint in the time that she left the base it's at least that point was plaintiff this was patricia ryan's first opportunity to consider her consider a plaintiff or a job but there are no other circumstances what about the the admittedly hearsay testimony about  being a trouble maker and that she would never get hired for anything is that another one of the areas where there was an objection that was an educated yes your honor we objected to that testimony as well if we actually look at the statement that is alleged to be specific enough to draw the conclusion that this was said and moreover even if the plaintiff had offered specific evidence that patricia ryan had called the plaintiff a troublemaker and this testimony is not that it wouldn't establish that she had that's because there's nothing about that statement that can be attached to her gender or her ego claim we can only speculate as to what the word troublemaker could have been in that situation  incurred one of whom was pat ryan reported to those individuals so that is the organization is that least i understand it your honor ok when i won i took i took and i and i asked him i said ok so if someone had alleged that they had not been promoted based upon gender under your command which was under your direction you would have felt that that kind of assertion that kind of complaint was s is that right answer yes absolutely because that's from the dinosaur ages i mean you know the airports hasn't done that in years and that's not part of my philosophy of being a commander