testimony there is to consider inconsistent testimony in terms of that and i should go to the jury and that is the reasons why that the district court's decision should be reverse judge williams i think you hit the nail on the head in january twenty third team digital he's a new company they are changing the infrastructure in which this company operates and they're changing accounting systems and i are g which is where misnomers was operating which was a business unit in this new company was encountering substantial accounting problems because it gillett he had converted from one accounting system to a new accounting system misnomers and the old accounting system had put controls in place to make sure that employees would be able to properly record their time when a jillion migrated to the new system unit that all those controls  misnomers concluded that she needed somebody with experience in job costing accounting which means somebody could go into the system basically like a computer programmer and create controls that numbers are self it done in the prior system number it didn't have time to do it also it really had eliminated over three hundred positions across the entire enterprise fourteen of those positions in higher g including the payable supervisor county supervisor so misnamed numbers needed more resources more skills to address this very significant accounting problems which was being generated by this new system crystal current was that person crystal current had spent ten years in job posting accounting it's undisputed she was the pose that one of her major functions was going into the unit system and establishing these missing controls this current testified without contradiction that that was an extensive process that she was with her term hard coding the system mr edmunds testified that she had never done that type of work she was not an administrator she did not have administrative rights when you look at her declaration which was submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment you'll see that she was not in that role she was not functioning that was the primary purpose that miss nevers concluded that she needed somebody with a different skill set and into and that decision was made after all these accounting issues arose in january twenty third there was major sea change happening as i said this is a brand new company there's no dispute if you look at the contemporary contemporaneous correspondence from the h r person to contact in this admin's in the e mail which is in the record  shally nixon specifically said this is because our systems have changed we've had to limiting your position because we need a new skill set a more sophisticated and skill set to carry on the business was a legitimate no there was a conversation april twenty twenty this is before agility stands up this is before jill he actually is making all these changes the circumstances are changing from april twenty twelve to january twenty third team and now counsel pointed out  and saying in september there was some assurances given that mr eddins position was safe well that's before agility rolled out this new accounting system in january so circumstances were changing in fact the record reflects nobody was guaranteed a safe position people were being notified of layoffs at once or selfless given the voluntary exit package which he declined that was in the november timeframe and before the new accounting system when the place but in terms of the comment the comment was an exchange in april twenty twelve again well before the infrastructure change and the comment was a conversation that was initiated by this admins her self in which she she and miss nevers were talking about their two sons who were getting ready to go off to college and missed this evidence disclosed to miss nevers that she was pregnant and she said i'm going to be dealing with children for the rest of my life and this number think you need to do it so it's so she doesn't so she relies on miss numbers to sort of make a decision i'm going to stay put it never has sort of this i guess the numbers knew that she was pregnant who seemed to me that numbers would say take the package that would be if somebody had that sort of invidious discrimination in mind the cleanest way to sort of address an issue like does he take the packers he didn't there was no bias in this numbers and in january when she makes these decisions she's making decisions looking out what the business needs what the operation these and in fact is the record reflects the entire department the entire accounting department hired was a limited by agility and misnomers herself was laid off so  that entire function was eliminated and moved to santillan which is where it will be headed and as the judge cooper finds many of these decisions are being made outside of misnomers control these are coming from the leadership with an agility they were the ones who decided on a new accounting system they are the ones who decided that there needed to be this restructuring they were the ones who decided that the function counting function irately was going to be eliminated and the new company who proposed that they make these changes to deal with these accounting problems and she testified to that she said she was a decision maker and she explained the decisions were because as of january twentieth thirteen is the record reflects mr edmunds doesn't they had massive problems they could not get their bills out because the employees were not able to code correctly into the system the programs to which they were billing the programs that they were on the misnomers testified again without foundation that the accounts are allocated and mapped to appropriate cost pools and what numbers describe what that means you're going to go into the system and you're going to create these controls and so in her testimony there is a question i asked her so there could be a difference between problems and questions that you can answer versus cost accounting problems and questions and she said yeah maybe and then when you look at her declaration when you do when she goes into what she possibly she reviewed them doesn't say that she actually manipulate here but there's nothing to indicate whether she could do what was in our core while all that had been done by mis remember there was a organizational structure in the numbers who was the controller then you actually had a manager or supervisor none of those functions were performed testimony reflects another's function of the control functions or form performed by edmunds numbers yourself testified she was the one who actually created the controls  there was a whole significant amount of operational sorry not a thank you