putri four is for the point explain why that no doesn't undermine your argument that really question five reflect misunderstanding or different understanding from the jury which which could still be harmonized in other words if they if the juror if we presume that the jury understands and follow instructions and they understand that there are no going to get the question five if they've actually and all factual findings you know that form the basis of bad but good going but that that note did not specify you know what what the next questions referred to and in terms of answering th question and you know that the jury what the jury understood it is is you know something that really needs to be interpreted in light of the record as a whole because it was it was unclear it was why isn't it why isn't it clear enough that again if we presume the jury follows instructions and that instruction is very clear only you can answer question five if you decided for the plaintiff on one of the earlier question job to my colleagues but i'm you talk about harmonizing and you say this can be read together i've read your brief i understand your brief struggling with the idea of them trying to have you help me how does how can said for example well maybe the word alleged is really important in that context but if we if we looked at that question and we said oh well they've been they've been here we were talking about perceived court recognizes that you know when you bring related claims that they're they're not they're not the state for purposes of disarming scene and so that was argued to the district court and the district court found that those claims were all directly inaccurate statement or think that the digital things that you point that you're making about places where the court could have or should have cut were those arguments made to the district court we made arguments to the district court harm specific specific power powers and fees specifically we identified them specifically there in our brief where we could identify specifically things that were related obviously to matters that were that should have been eliminated but our point was with those that that they were not collimating by the plaintiffs and so the plaintiffs category of things that should be included and the district court agreed with them no i believe that we identified more than one i believe if you go you know we identified several head and the point being made that made in a district court was that we we went through the material that was provided by plaintiff and identified to the best that we could those several things supreme court's hendley opinion affectively rejects your position that it's that it says you know we don't expect and can't expect warriors in an employment discrimination case to go issue by issue  respond to that harkin internet of course is that the statute requires something else and the statue in this particular case specifically says that the  i think that the plaintiffs counsel has the obligation to do that as best as they can as we cited in the katie case as well the counsel when they know that the case as they did in this case is  in limine a for example number twelve plaintiff is myths that the claims for discrimination involve different factual and legal elements then that would draw infill you to accommodate claims so if that's the case then they could have kept separate records kept records and identified those factual elements of those legal elements that were different between the claim that the discrimination claim that they won and the fail court's language that's the argument i'm trying to get you to meet i know that i know you're falling back on this that story text but we got to take cattle with the supreme court united they held this to that had to apply here no i think that i think general problem is maybe with regard to the ability of plaintiff's counsel to keep track that they have been unfair to the statute gives them the obligation to do so when they can do so and you know this particular case they could ok and crudely here just for the sake of time that you smuggled in you know you smuggled in advice of counsel defense two had no right to put indicate to the court allow you to do that is reversible error can you can you can take that on directly what what was in the case that made anything that a lawyer said about accommodation relevant to the discrimination or retaliate clay let me do one thing if i can with the permission of the court before i respond to  relevant things such as we were basically accused of violating the law and you know plaintiffs opening remarks we think that they basically said we are lawbreakers we believe that we had the right and to prove that we made every effort regardless of what specific queen was involved to show to the jury that we made every believe that i believe that they did and open the door with regard to that to suggest that we did not take our obligations seriously with regard to our employees and their civil rights and so in part we were we were we were titled to show that we were serious about our obligations to our employees and we any of the result that she wished when she filed the suit an act based on the floor case and nd set forth the shepherd is the primary place that the court should start and we're not the did something that the court thought was societal worthwhile and therefore would be in compensation but what's wrong with that well the good coffee case gets to that point practically  difference between good and cough and the rest of the cases is good and cough completely ignores or suggests that one can completely ignore the fact that the plaintiff recovered no cover nothing  and that's the primary consideration is this judge didn't consider that at all couldn't one shepherd also says and some of the other cases say that the the conduct of the plaintiffs which resulted in the mixed motives decision to begin with should be considered this judge did not consider that at all and we don't honestly think that this case is opiate in anything of any particular benefit it is more or less a regular case that the provided no no new provided no issues no new claims and is not very significant on the horizon of that the advice account for the incident presented at trial had only to do with the issue of whether the sure heart should be granted the commendation and that's not something the jury ever had to deal with what difference does it make what when you say oh it made a difference clearly they thought that the company could do something wrong because they said there was discrimination against your or any answered questions one and two in your