four cases on for argument today and for the benefit of counsel we have read your briefs and on your arguments there is no need to give us a recitation of the procedural background or the facts of the case we are familiar with those given the limited time i recommend that you get right to the arguments you wish to press upon us for the benefit of anyone who may not be familiar with their lighting system the yellow light when it comes on means you're beginning to consume your rebuttal time the red light means that your entire time has expired or will hear argument first the numbers zero fo six that zero there is one other point let me add first to for the preparation of lawyers in the second and third cases the docket now this is ultratech against tamarack scientific the docket i believe has fifteen twenty it's coming second right in our series of four cases first among the two tech cases and fourteen twenty one which were called the merits case is coming second we're going to reverse those two cases and the of i see that there are different lawyers arguing those two cases if there's anyone from those two cases who's in the cafeteria or in the library or otherwise assuming that the third case is going to be third if you could endeavor to make sure that they're here so that they understand that those cases will be inverted in the order of argument fast what they want to do in nineteen ninety eight or ninety ninety nine but for ninety nine to two thousand and one they're after an eight he's performing building inspector not jewish responsibilities you don't need they what they should or they didn't do what they didn't do for two years they didn't do it during that interim of two years based on an accretion of dubious concept he performs something higher that you don't need  has he asked for it since the litigation began and the issue of whether he's amenable to an is it fair to infer from the fact that he has not asked for it since the question is arisen as to whether he opposes it or not that he really has not been enthusiastic to say the least about it it's a question to see and do with it because well  keep can i ask you on what do you think is the strongest evidence that you have of age discrimination i mean that and to be clear about what i'm impolite and and legally wrong that isn't necessary discrimination unless there's a basis for pointing to the fact that it was age that was the cause of the the discriminatory treatment and what ev hundreds of truck drivers and it just so happened that there were no black truck drivers in the particular unit for ever and the court said that in itself is a sufficient crime a fish case of discrimination the question is now because there they have the numbers of black versus white truck drivers where is the the equivalent number of older versus well but that i'm still looking for something that says and here is the way people who are older were treated differently from people which is the whole point of teamsters i can't necessarily say that this is  clear that he was objecting to as opposed to inquiring as to the source of the that's got it i found i mean i understand there's a finding here that he objected to it premised i guess on that e mail but it let me ask the question this way was there any other evidence that he was offered and flat out refused or hard jack did to my desk other than the e mail i don't believe you when you say give an opportunity after r p to request one who is did anybody actually go to him and say do you want to death squad it and he said no i don't believe so what was the form of this opportunity after opportunity other than that it was available to him if he walked into the door and said i want to desk  right he did the subject come up and is there evidence that it came up at another's on the i don't want to play games with words here but the fact that he didn't ask for one doesn't necessarily equate if you have nothing further to that you need to let me ask you a question and each of these cases i think i'm right about this but you can correct me if i'm wrong that the two or negotiations or other wise may by and large the court finds single arguments to be more convenient it's sometimes find ourselves as king questions of one council that really ought to be addressed to another and the coming and going it's a little awkward i wonder whether you all have considered in these cases simply having a single attorney or is that just on a manageable or is there another good reason that we hear from both of you do you have it doesn't strike me and it hasn't struck me in the past that there are differences of position with respect to the legal questions that we typically get pretty redundant briefing i think where they are on the same side where the the arguments are essentially duplicative i'm not sure that anybody's interest is served well by having multiple arguments well it's it's more in the nature of just sort of an idol in korea i suppose because i think to the extent i would put it this way to the extent that it's merely a product of inertia and nobody's really sat down grapple with the issue i wonder if it isn't worth grappling with i  to have that law necessarily are implemented the way the law is written it's not up to the arctic to switch the burden responsibilities on the planet he doesn't work doesn't do the work they had plenty of time to say idea if i were to apply for a job at the department of justice and i could demonstrate that i was qualified for the job let's say of trial attorney at the department of justice but they turned me down with that be a prime