promotion to william snooks an african american with a college degree nearly more than twenty years of experience in favor of a sore white high school graduate with less experience as we have it is guys is just let me speaking only the german in part of it the reason for his motivation for being unfair was based upon are the gender or race in the we've got this right along which should never happen i mean that is the height of an unfair rece short maybe but a jury could find that you've got these two people and there's no there is you're right your honor there is no explanation for why one is treated better than the other when one has a college degree it and the company in fact thought that was four categories which related to actual informants he got she got twenty he got nineteen the reason he wound up higher was she gave him who are for education again or only a reasonable jury could find either way on that i agree but i think what i think the importance of this is your honor is that what the company has done with that evidence the college degree for example just one example whatever it's whatever first up the district court said that you have to experience or a college degree i think a fair reading of that of that posting says the green business or comparable and five years experience of this record read that as being either a degree or five years experience fact issue the what the company did with it though that said well it doesn't matter now at all obvious lee mattered because they were rated on it and it doesn't matter so could a jury find that that differential  they probably don't come before this court because those cases are subtle but your honor what we have here is pieces of evidence that are inconsistent pieces of evidence that are implausible for example is it implausible to give roger and these are and especially and in hiring cases it's very difficult because and no one's going to be stupid enough to do that but there's that there's the treatment of the callers there's the favorable treatment for the white that the african american didn't get and regardless of who did it if i get employment way but those those issues of differential treatment you know this court machine mental case there's a slippery rock talk about that because in that case it was a gender case but the woman had access to some kinds of training court clearly gave the benefit of those inferences to the defendant the the education the benefit went to the family the whole notion of this ride along that the district court said well i have no direct evidence that they talked about the job well it a reasonable inference that when your you have one interview and you're not riding along with a person for whatever whoever schedule it the you're not going to discuss a job maybe not but you're going to have an opportunity to ride along with the decision maker for an judgment motion evidence the jury is not required to believe now what in this case is the and justice o'connor specifically talked about evidence an interested party of an interested party that's and this court in hill vs scranton said the same thing and then another panel this court said well no you've got to believe interested which runs totally obvious what of what the law has been in this for one hundred years ago you were interested witnesses weren't even competent to testify i think interest in the case so the jury can do that when a jury is deciding that why cannot a summary judgment motion when the evidence favorable to the moving party i get the benefit of inferences and evidence favorable to the moving party of of discrimination as i suppose from calm that's something i still can get to a jury on that and argue that there is there is differential treatment here and one person was more was more qualified once the african american interviewer was off that off that panel suddenly a person who wasn't quite as good objective liane subjectively i mean two tenths of a percent below  close but that but she still has it opens higher so that now we suddenly have the two white guys on the jury and suddenly suddenly mr snooks is is worse in every area and that's what the that's what the defendant is saying  know one of them is totally inconsistent with what they told the h r see the other one about the the fighting a take it outside situation i mean that's an impossibility if you're having two people are having a fight in the swearing at each other there's there's one cells take it outside and that's the correct answer that's inquires about your honor and in fact in fact mr carro said that was the wrong answer flat wrong not not not a degree of of gray or anything that was flat got this exactly right the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact here if you are right what happens if we were to senses say that you but if there's enough for a jury to conclude that the reasons that they gave for hiring store are pretext they've got stories got this situation which is got ours will long with mcgill and that it in his deposition that the notes that were taken actor who reflected both the questions that were asked and his responses and with respect to those responses he therefore admitted that he did not discuss progress of discipline in response to questions one and five he also admits that he did not discuss drug testing until he was prompted because the notes reflected that it was only after mr mcgill asked him about drug tests they didn't make you hear reason initially didn't go say he didn't discuss that in his deposition when he was asked whether it was whether he responded mistress not responded about drug testing he said now that  not but he also acknowledged that his notes were accurate in the ph r c the letter that we submitted to the ph r c it did say that mr snooks did not respond to the question and discuss about drug testing but we also presented to the p h r c the nuts and those notes reflected that it wasn't until after he was prompted by mr mchugh no to discuss drug testing that he did discuss and so the first question that he asked you when you started had singled out the person who got the job as the one they wanted to get the job and they just made it happen that she was strong enough at least that they could make it happen but that's not the only evidence that the reason they gave was not the right one but it's not discrimination with a preferred reason is that they like her didn't like him to do raise your i agree that front page has those two alternative responses to the articulated business reason it's our position in the district court agreed with us that there are no genuine issues of that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the reasons given by duquesne light were untrue or were pretext and that again going back to the fact that it's admitted by mr snooks what took place in that interview and what his responses were and therefore what he's really asking the court to do is to second guess what the would do kane like the cited based upon those interview responses that he admitted there's no issue because our right a lot just what two days don't think that the jury concluded that the fine points of the questioning or whether he said it when it was prompted or not prompted is not the real reason he wasn't hired it's just that they would be for the jury to assume facts that aren't there just because the right along took place does not present facts that something inappropriate happened where she was make promotions from within it's very common that the person making the decision may have more contact with one than another and if that were enough to create an issue a factor would have to go to a jury then it would seem that every promotion case that takes place with internal candidates would have that as an automatic right to go to a jury because that always happens there's never balance as to the amount of content how you the balance so you don't see this kind of way the entire process to a place that if this tour mcgill had in his mind that he want to store from the very beginning there would have been no need to have a second set of interviews like they did you think six answer was really great or not it seems to me if i want the job because it's more projection don't want to think i'm going to use my brain is stimulating is better than i want more in my in my pension your honor if i could respond that that was a mis characterization by the plaintiff as to what the answer was that missed or gave to the question about why she wanted the job the notes that are in the record reflect that she mentioned pension as one of a number of things the other things included wanting a challenge and wanting a change of job and a future so the pension was only one aspect it was not the whole answer the scheduling of the second interview was actually  minor suggestion that they go forward even though she was on vacation so it was not directed by mr mcgill at auk who she was then has to take that they say your honor i don't get i don't know that it's in the record as to who actually question of israel about the impact of reeves on this particular case if i could take a moment the argument that's being raised that reeves says that the court on a summary judgment most of us always disregard any testimony presented by the movement from an interested witness is wrong and completely stretches rees beyond what was said there first of all the words the reeves used said that when would be considered that's what they would have said they said at least which opens the prospect if there's more evidence such as from interested witnesses they could comment that the interpretation they placed on reeves also would totally  mcdonnell douglas analysis because what they would say it's almost always the case that when corporations are speaking in presenting what their budget in the reason was for the decision that's testimony of the decision maker corporations have to speaks room or east if you accept their interpretation of reads that would mean the employer could never present evidence of what it's articulated reason was so you would get summary judgment in every case where there's a case you never got to the second and third stages of mcdonnell douglas analysis also the someone else supreme court case on summary judgment the andersen versus liberty lobby case that case specifically involved the testimony of it's a libel case involve the test the employer arms are the defendant the evidence it presented was the deposition or the affidavit of the person who wrote the article who was an employee of the publisher explaining what he did research and why it was truthful was what he wrote the plaintiff in response presented no evidence to contradict that but argued that the court should deny s because a jury could always disbelieve what that person and the supreme court an interest in said no that's not enough fifty six requires you to do more in response to a motion for summary judgment than to just say that the jury could disbelieve it and that's what they're attempting to do here in this case reads obviously if it were going to change the landscape would have said so much more directly and using the words at least which is what is being relied upon here also every circuit that's addressed this doesn't say what they're alleging here we've cited to a fifth circuit case in our briefs just a little over a month ago the first circuit ruled on that issue as well in a case  gilman testifies in his deposition with respect to knowledge of the drug testing that mr stokes talk at all about the drug testing policy during his interview no and then call what's in coles notes there are there's an inconsistency in  terms on a very material issue because there they really narrowed it down to three questions that they said snooks did didn't do as well as as stewart did and one of them was the drug policy question the other was the take it outside by the ways of mickey that we mean the same thing in pittsburgh to take has often said you have to look at all the evidence as a whole and that's the point here these are all the district or didn't do that this week with through each individual strand just like my friend and said well that can't be that and that can't be it but most west when when read together those inconsistency along with the fact that you got a college degree and a person that didn't even submit a resume for that matter your honor until afterwards there's evidence in the record of that you know your state your client's  movement the movement c reads with a citation the reason this court has said that in five or six continuous cases it's not this isn't something that we made up and it makes sense or can can on this economy now it's a very you know come up with storen miguel and that's really where that's really the only i'm contradicted factual question in this case so the very narrow issue is does does a fact finder have to believe that given all the other circumstantial