and then another act the same day her first and if the attempted terminations suspension and then finally reprimand the overall error we have set forth and are released by the district court w respect he has won the district court's failure to not impede upon the jury's domain in this situation the district court appeared to reach conclusions that are court judge says the plaintiff has presented no evidence to support her position or something to that effect watches zero in on the pretext finding because it was so mean that no one debates whether overriding i think issue concerning the legitimate not discriminatory reason i think clear from precedent that even if the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason  there is evidence that even if an individual were there any greater responsibilities bring her in contact with the words or so that the mistake that she made originally the employer before that she got her still a hearing and went to the civil service commission wanted to terminate or that's correct so there would be consistent with just help me out under the i'm trying to send your thirty their theory is incompetency after her scully hearing on the terminations well there's an investigation before the scale here an investigation was conducted at that investigation it was but it was miss campbell the person who initially terminator that's an important statement because miss campbell knew when she proposed determination that ms demas does not request  this report then after the investigation miss campbell said she reduced the termination to suspension because ms demas did not request to rewrite the report so the information upon which miss campbell allegedly bases her reduction of the discipline she already had when she proposed the termination we're dealing basically with those instances not to get was that miss campbell even admitted that one mistake wouldn't necessarily justify terminating a permit promotion during probationary period i submitted in that concluded that as of p s two she should have been familiar with the appropriate limitations on the type of an inspection if that's the right word or examination that she  and that it was her unfamiliarity with the county's regulation that was the problem here interesting point i agree that that's what the civil service commission found that she was reprimanded for after the civil service commission specified what the incompetence was reprimanded her for examination being incompetent in the examination and it might sound like a on a predominantly negro hispanic and other minority area and that particular adoption facility tyrion focused on adoptions is concerning primarily negro flexibility in the application of this rule that my client was for which my client was demoted flexibility but no explanation as to why the flexibility was of like here the application of a rule in order to make your legitimate nondiscriminatory reason sufficient you have to explain why you didn't apply the what's the bill here what was done here that made it that made it necessary to absolutely apply the rule to the extent that there was a demotion and usually a proposed terminations and eventually the motion and suspension and the only reason the suspension was knocked out was because the civil service commission finally said you know based on which you can get the examination that was in violation and she was incompetent to the limit extent that she didn't know the rule would not justify the motion or terminations or that proposition i would cite the court to a recent case that  was lost sight is in my brief that hernandez versus space last medical in the west last site is in my grief the site i give us three four three second eleven o s said you can't get a motor person for incompetence she was incompetent because the civil service commission said she was incompetent in this limited area therefore everybody's got to believe that we did in fact demoted because of that incompetence a reasonable person doesn't have to believe that based in part on the responses i have given judge fisher in this in the pretext of instances a reasonable person would not english bryant for county of san diego in the case the question is whether the evidence shows that the employer made its employment decisions for legitimate business reasons based on the information that was available at the time at the record peach seventy three there's the by a preponderance of the evidence agency proved that the employee violated the policy regarding disrobing children by not being familiar with the policy and by visually examining the children with more clothing removed than was necessary for the examination and so it would be reasonable to interpret that just isn't as standing for the proposition prior to this incident and the way that she handled this and then prior to that point in time performance evaluation she received the mid term of her  the position and in addition there's been no evidence here presented by the plaintiff that there were any other employees who were guilty of conduct like mistiness this or any conduct that warranted a reprimand even a reprimand where the person was allowed to pass probation i mean this person felt probation for legitimate music it was a probationary now at the same time that  african american floyd based upon that memory you know there's no evidence that they were desperately treated either as a group there's no evidence of a specific standards that were applied to one well i would ask the court overall first if i know you will focus on the record some of what ms bryant said was because bryant speaking or not the record if you just focus on the record and not just argument of counsel i think it's clear the air here one with respect to what the civil service commission said i paid seventy three of the record i've admitted they found evidence of a violation in the examination seventy four of the excerpts of record in their findings that's where they limit the finding of my being incompetent to not knowing the rules it's clear that it was probationary who is found unsatisfactory for or incompetent to fulfill the duties of the position to which he slashed she is appointed except as provided in rule fourteen point three point she can't be terminated because she's black so still they have to have a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and that brings us right back to was there a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason so i could to you said the two