question that she did the work and did work beyond her category as a secretarial employee the testimony is that beginning in one thousand nine hundred ninety five she received a promotion at one point then which put back down but that in two thousand and eight someone came in the it's the f a a agents involved so there can clarify your theory at least you could be saying that the government should just have a broader pay range for people at the g s six level or you could be saying that there's a problem that she wasn't promoted to the g s eleven level or you know its eventual equivalent or whatever is the scale was or you could be saying that she was asking for the desk audit so that her actual job could get slotted at the right level g s six seven eleven whatever level it was so what are you saying number one i don't think we are saying this that she asked for a promotion had she done there she could have gone in and apply what she was really are not saying that that there's a failure to promote that if that's the case then how do we fit the government structure of the g s pay scales input into this discrimination theory the scales are what they are i mean they have a certain range of pay for each class education but within those pay rate within those age groups there are different levels within the pay well that shows they had they don't signal like a g s six is never going to get to a point that they're being paid as much as a g s eleven i'm pretty sure i mean i haven't looked at the whole set of lately but there's been a lower and steps and then it top and i understand it at this point i don't don't know if that was raised but again from the plane of standpoint we're dealing with a woman who information in the record the information the record deals with the fact that first of all this is the f a a sure we're talking about a category of employee exact nationwide right we know that the people who were in i think anchorage and i forget where other one was are still categorized as that and the definition is based on the what they defined the type of work being performed by the so you're citing  that they were doing when work and the type of work they were doing was the same work being done by mr burke and that she basically stepped in to perform that work so can i go back to my other thinking i'm not so somehow something has to happen to me and she either has to go to the f a a and say i should be paid the same amount as maria miller or joanne forests or whoever this anchorage person was i forget or she had to say you need to reclassify my job or she had to say you know you should put me in that whether you use the word promote or not i don't really care of you know but put me in the g s thirteen category i don't see her saying any of those things so if your theory is that the f a a just on its own initiative should have done this i'm not sure where that has any bas never tells them what her pay grade and job classification are in those letters and she doesn't add a final sentence to those letters saying therefore i think you should pay me more your honor she never used a mystical word yes i want more money well if i do you also know if it's a but she but she also testified that she had conversations with these people regarding the war type of work she was doing and that they said that they would get back to her i think it's on page one examiner the opinion that's not precise enough for me she had conversations regarding the work she was doing so you alleging that we would find in the record conversations where she actually asks for hey this is what i'm getting hey now you're paid for it i think in her mind that's what she meant all along and i think that was conversations but i can't say that id have that statement that she put at the end of the letter people to do the work in the department as compared with the time when the department was fully staffed and it's old don't we have to put that in context but the the answer is yes but up to a point were there at the time when she was there were getting more money we know that during that period of time the two people fourth and miller were getting the additional pay that she would get and that when they left she took over their that's why i was asking that question i just went back in the record that's what i thought this issue ation you so you don't really have a similarly situated individual i when i look at the national scope of it and how she wished what they said the type of duty she is then i would say that the people in the other areas who were classified higher were performing the same type of work as that's the definition of the type of work they were doing and she was not captain slated for their and i think they have you know and i don't have any mystical magical argument i think the argument is real simple i think she was performing the work the work she was performing was well above what she should have been paid and she should have been reimbursed for pay for their work that she was doing but isn't the process that the government uses for that very problem that you identify which i'm sure happens to other people as well is this request for a desk audit so somebody can come to a specialist and then say oh gee you know this job isn't properly purpose but that point is irrelevant anyway she would it is not enough to say that your quest at the desk top or rather that she requested a desk audit thought she was being paid to less and thought that was because they were being urged because of her gender or national origin so simply saying i'd like to get paid doing equal works requiring substantially something similar skill effort and responsibility in similar working conditions the three individual wasn't this anchorage person the main yes trying to there was joe dahlan acreage there was deser suggest she's not being paid the same amount as a man is for doing the same work correctly in her job all in anchorage however there's one very important thing to note is that the evidence relied upon states on its face that was last updated in july two thousand and seven the f a a reorganized several offices in september two thousand and seven and mr barch only began allegedly working as a program analyst in january two thousand and eight so we have no record no evidence that any male is performing as a program analyst in january two thousand  to january two thousand and eleven for we also don't know anything else about them besides their location their name and their of their job title we don't know what their job duties were their backgrounds their education what they were paid or even their pay grade that's not indicated in the employee direct direct district court also properly granted summary judgment as to the discrimination claims it's important to note that although it was originally also a failure from a claim they are not appealing that issue ases stated numerous times she did  similarly situated employees so it really seems to happen is this last of the series of of supervisors lay comes along and brings her duties back in line with her job classification so she's been giving the government three months free work you know during the period when the display is off this is understaffed and she's covering the same work at miller and forest to done w it seems that mr barch was performing some of the duties that miller in four days was were performing as well but as engineering technical officer neal johnson indicates she was doing the work that was that they used to do in the early part of that program so she's just in this tiny office when she's doing these and yes they are saying the bulk of that work is being done in fort worth texas and actually the remainder work is supposed to be being done by emily nichols the contractor removing these minor alterations are these minute these minor duties which to were assigned responsibilities is a minor alteration and does not constitute that perception to support her gender discrimination claims she wants against points to joe doll doll swatch and deseret james we don't know anything about what they supervisors knew she knew she was a she knew she was a special so that's of course not a ground in which they could discriminate on if they were unaware of it and that is not controverted in the record there are many differences between miller and  for is such as the timing of the supervision the volume of work that there was a contractor assigned and the work history as such the gender discrimination that origins from a nation claim is also probably granted some heart of it is the recognition when as you said when lord islay took over in two thousand and ten and became the supervisor she recognize and acknowledging factor secretary testified she acknowledged that the at mr burke watch in fact doing work well beyond what she was supposed to be doing and then when that happened they immediately wrote letters taking the work away taking the prism away reacting to it and the question is why did they do that whether or not they recognize they had a fair case and then retaliated against her because of it in my mind the actions that were taken at that time demonstrate the recognition that she was getting less pay than she should have done for years and that nothing was done about it even though she had written those letters saying i'm