plan where he was placed on a six month probationary period and then the employer discharged him prior to the conclusion of such a period during such a period he was increasing substantially increasing the numbers of the of the branch business so he in fact four months later he had increased the number by one hundred and forty three thousand dollars there was no reason whatsoever for the ba to terminate his employment prior to the conclusion of such period so unless it is not correct that although he had what was required was a two point six five rating so i'll stay away from all that goes into the rain for the six months prior to his terminations he never hit that mark but once that was the general requirement for all branches we think the performance improvement plan period there was no specific goal established when you read the law isn't that enough for the company to say he said meeting our legitimate performance expectations because he was given six months took up to reach that goal he was given six months to reach that goal and he was very close to reaching that goal when he was on the company so he was going to reach it they fired him merely because of the reasons that we have raised an argument that they were discriminating against him so the goal the two  five number was was the general rule for four branches but during that performance improvement plan he was he was given that time to reach that number it was not great if he had if he would have been able doesn't say that but he doesn't say the other way around it doesn't say that he has to me that two hundred and sixty five every month he doesn't say that in fact there was no goal as i don't want to see didn't come close in form the six months why is that why doesn't that make unchallenged for the purpose of this case very low scores repeatedly for several periods of time and but they didn't let him go they put him on a six months performance plan and then before the end of that plan they then fired him and if they had like suddenly discovered is a change halfway through the performance planned the nabi i could see how you stack a ts some nexus l now i'm assuming that  if you give them six months because it's a period of time that he has to improve then why is that was the time period could they have fired him without even putting him on the piano well there are some arguments on the record and some evidence also because all that bad performance in the previous years had been it was not worth that all the letters he was sent to a branch that had been subject of fraud so he was he was sent there he tried to improve that branch and then he was sent to these other branch were you claiming the earlier bad performance reviews were themselves the result of age discrimination no but then we and so if you've got untainted bad performances jobs employment i fit nation those other wordings that were given to him concerning performance when he was assigned to the old lot of branch one of the another in nearby municipalities tha closed operations and all the cost of hours of that branch were assigned to he's branch even though there were two other branches that were closer in this does so what happened was that he received that book of clients and immediately after receiving that and that is part of now is part of his record and he has to comply with quotas concerning that book of place but immediately those last began to leave to other two branches because they were close or were nearby their homes so immediately that began to affect his performance and that's part of the record so so that the company saying this this is their argument this is an employee who has been performing badly for the last five years when you look clearly the previous four years there is abundant evidence on the record that it's true that the branches were not performing adequately but he had been improving them based on the specific circumstances and what had happened the very bad  that were given to him and then in the last six months when you see the warnings that he was given they put it on a performance improvement plan and they begin to give you warning every month every month every month when clearly he had six months to you know cases the circumstances may require it what do you do without language well i understand the circumstances in this particular case evidently show clearly show that he submit to you respectfully i mean it's i think it's part of the the opportunities court has in this day and age everybody knows you cannot discriminate based on nature and you have the perfect the categories i mean we have internet there's information thing for the company to get rid of him nothing happened so why did they get rid of him and then when you look at the totality of the circumstances of the companies that were being made the fact that there were fifty percent other branch managers with worst performance than him and nothing happened to them the fact that there was another lady younger employee younger branch manager who was given who was given an extension of the b a p who only had ten years of service when he had twenty eight years of service so when you look at the totality of circumstances that's