as far as your time have you talked about how you want to divide that up or what your decision th thousand and five changed hands and at that point greg taylor who was the supervisor themselves before came aboard the tell at that point the response was basis hotel management company did not at that point about the same order for one month during the month of march halfway during the month of march two weeks then or in the all parted ways of mr naylor was only employed by a cor s for about two weeks and of course the freeman statement which i'm sure we're going to talk about that was reported by the outgoing general manager of the cellar on february yes the outgoing general manager who is not connected whatsoever with core not connected with the owners she was simply the outgoing general manager and this happened on quite clearly that it prejudiced the administrative law judge and her decision of the two to rely on it in giving her she spends i think the first twenty pages of a thirty page decision discussing in great detail so called chain of a bits leading up to february twenty three and then in her conclusion she concludes by stating that the responded targeted the complaint of destroyed for reasons other than her job or so what is she referring to what evidence is there in the record that supports the ultimate finding of fact that the supreme court's as must be the agency is is a face must be set forth in the order or here in the rulings and findings of the administrative agency all that is point in support of discrimination as the ultimate intent yes the freeman statement which is clearly hearsay of hearsay is clearly a stray remark indeed a stray remark of the most remote and extreme order it was a statement made by non decision maker employed by nonparty twenty months before a final decision mr dale or there is not a shred of evidence reported in that opinion by the commission in the decision of the question or in the record hi he was engaged in name any of the interviewing that took place prior to the fed worried twenty three this decision was made with the rather they reported decision by the outpouring general manager was stated on february twenty three that was their testimony that mr naylor told the plaintiff to turn all your clients over to miss corke and i believe if you don't like it you can leave your honor that's not in the commission's report that's not in the in certain ways was was not given certain resources and there was very vigorous cross evidence counter evidence to that and guess what the administrative law judge did not it's not as it's not a hard wh stipulations record we said several of walleye of cases at the very end of our reply brief for the proposition that the administrative agency on appeal and not attempt to argue evidence that was relied therefore off the table forever and ever and cannot be used to justify the ultimate result later on if we think it's more relevant than the m j focus was think it discounters question was about the hotel management holding the client base away from the plaintiff here which undermined her ability to meet her sales goals but we're not talking about just a nugget of evidence we're talking about a main theory an argument that the complainant attempted fell short of one hundred thousand dollars of her reduced revenue goal at the end of that ninety day period now like a lot of good managers they want to make sure that the sales people are using the tools that sell we don't generate revenue then the owners of the hotel to pay the bills to get paid employees at the end of the day it's all about revenue particularly in a big urban hotel like this which is the end of driving in this comes into the issue of the analysis of pretax commissions pretext analysis and it's quite well established not cited several seventh circuit case for the proposition that the analysis is limited to the honesty of the reason not to believe ability and honesty is a narrower category that believe things can be nonbeliever both for reasons other than dishonest our only concern is the honesty of the employer's explanation that ties in with some familiar quotes that you've seen from the courts and i think we cited several in our brief  made by the employer that that's as far as the analysis go secondly the courts do not weigh the sufficiency of that is the sufficiency of the reason from the employer's perspective given the employer's right to make business decisions as the employer and this is exemplified you know by the common expression you see a lot of the seven circuit that course do not s the task of the commission and discord is not to review and make determinations on the propriety of each disciplinary action taken we we and the court held that the jury was not allowed to weigh the competing credentials of applicants in this value to their discrimination case because the criteria for failure  discrimination going at because you seldom have to rectify it and what what is difficult for your side of the case here i think is  this almost the simplicity of it comes down to two people right these two employees the plaintiff and the other one in and this is this moving target of you know what they're supposed to do in terms of meeting goals or which goes more underlined the whole me tricks of numbers is the fact which seems to be undisputed that they pulled the client base away from the plaintiff before this all started happening here on a whim gave it to the other employee duck or numbers employer's right to make its decision based on how it moves to run the business just as in mill wrote the courts that the jurors did not have the training or the knowledge to waive the credentials ask one follow up on them that we've got an issue playing out they're also going after us really well and the issue playing out there right after the plaintiff was terminated in favor of the other candidate who allegedly had better numbers that the other candidates numbers written actually incorrect because there was a huge client that someone walked out the door and therefore had the corrected numbers been applied the plaintiff would have won and the winner of that thank you for asking questions that related specifically to her sales that is careful in sales in the month of december and nothing to do with the relevant period of september october based on the signed contract you got in the book and then also in the month if you had business that you booked many months earlier yet business that was actually in the hotel in that same month and they either pestle or they booked fewer rooms than that was deducted from your revenue number for that month so this was the system that was applied and this is a system that him or you're using his business judgment set up it was the same system that apply to everybody so the significance of what your honor is referring to is really just to the fact that in the following month december she had a low number of negative number forget what it was but that was because in that particular month of december some business that she had booked much room had to have it had nothing to do with the probationary period that c three and c four which are the two thousand and six month by month goals that each was to mean that remained in place and it was revenue and then used to evaluate discrimination cases involving interact evidence of discrimination under mcdonnell douglas if the commission and this believes the employer's stated reason for discharging a boy the commission not believe the respondent stated reason for just charging the complainant on some ask you what about your opponent's argument that maybe the l g didn't understand the hotel business but all they're focused on is revenue and the other two things that were mentioned  notice the respondent deliberately eluded these prospects and entertainment goals when the respondents said laying it down to us playing a probationary period the respondent said exactly what was in the document you have to meet each and every monthly sales call you have to meet the total sales but you have to meet each and every monthly entertainment prospect there was never any discussion of oh if you just meet the revenue for the aggregate three month period that will be just  it you know even if you take the stand and and focus and nothing but revenue is just and i wish to do at the end of the day the complainants two thousand and six revenue was thirty percent hi more than thirty percent higher than the white twenty four year old that resigned it retained even if you want to focus just on revenue during the three month probationary period miss corke and the white twenty four year old did not need her revenue goals either at trial the complainant showed that court grand had not met the revenue goals responded nonetheless editor numbers and in december used to think tisha cancellation revenue the three of the other one that's out there that you were lying out in just the freeman statement and you know even if we get over the you know who would never was subjected to me if we only had the freeman statement would we have a case here i mean discover how was that evidence of discrimination if someone simply says i think i think the new owners are racists and therefore you should quit before you're fired because that evidence of anything and  ruled on the indirect evidence which had nothing to do with freeman the the commission direct evidence that ever even was your opponent seems to be making an argument that you know even though it was result only on the indirect part of the case which is the revenue issue already that the freeman statement so permeated the atmosphere that the team to the a o changed that you know judgment making ability that therefore we have to get to some kind of remedy here but to clean the record what i'll do with it you'll see different statement out of out of here and i don't know you know that really asking for it to be remanded for a fresh airing or a mistrial or something waited until after the end of the probationary period to pick and choose what standard to apply and it did so in and extremely suspicious fashion where it's rely cancelation it wasn't even  as we look at the details of financial statements and things like that we can't really sort of missed the bigger picture here that we had over forty year old african american woman and an under forty year old white woman they were given the same hats the same profession or to both of them failed but only the over forty african american woman was fired and she was replaced by an under forty white where's the be west basis because practice is what it's all about it's about prospecting it's about entertainment their own test says that second if it were just about revenue how do you fire the woman that has the very best actual record in terms of revenue at the end of the day you reasonable person could come to the conclusions that the condition did and second the commission get the right you know i was asked the question several times where is the factual information in this record about there being  was asked about goals in this testimony he gave that we've given the citations in our in our brief and i'll do jack i don't think there's a new first chapter and verse but the other thing lurking factually is this notion that the probationary period was tired you can see this who's actually tied to the earlier management policy it's all part and parcel of the same thing and that earlier policy focus on revenue and so we need sort of carrier and that too is alive by the record we have this in our in our previous well i'm just one quick you and i have paid for thirty one questions so you suspended the one policy and created another is that right answer based on the circumstances that we're going out of that hotel yes full stop that there was nothing here no reasonable person could reach the decision of the commission to one quick point about the law there is a flavor in the argument today that was sort of looking back to what used to i think be called the pretext plus right has been dead for quite some time and yet you don't need to go any further than i think the real scase is the one people cite so much from the supreme court make it clear that it's absolutely dad and again one sentence quote a plagiarist prima f case combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated that's the law of the land and on this record commission was us to forty eight out of the plane just may succeed this is in terms of the first either directly by persuading the court that you can discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's property two one of three of the transcript plaintiff complained it was on direct examination the she was being asked about the meeting she had with mr naylor with miss or regarding the probationary period and miss richardson was asked the following question so when you talk to greg naylor about that how this probationary period would work did he tell you that it would be ok if you missed your prospect ingalls just as long as you bet your goals answered yes it was it was sales go she admitted that it paid one hundred to one of three of the transcript she knew she understood anybody in sales understands that it is all about sales prospecting entertainment are not important they were goals that were imposed or placed there by the sales department to give them tools to motivate them to make sales but at the end of the day it's all about sales  she fell short of herself told by one hundred thousand dollars that was a reduced sales go was a ninety day sales referring to the probationary notice t even reached the fine print but it's clear in the center of the form it says ninety day probationary go two hundred thirty seven thousand some odd dollars that was the go she fell short of one hundred thousand dollars but i still have to ask you you keep focusing on these these these goals but in order to meet the goals you have to have clients whether they are clients you solicit or appellate court or a quarter of you can't rely on the unstated fact to justify the ultimate result in this anderson made the point that i thought was the law in illinois was that we can a farm in a not given the right pill but there was ample evidence the court of appeals cannot go back and read through that whole transcript and try to make credibility determinations of who to believe that is what the administrat reply brief and end and it's a case very similar to what we have here where the commission i think the issue the issue was the employee failed to show for work the three days in the factual issue had to do with whether the employee ever called him and the commission disbelieved disbelieve that and said see the effect that you know surely somebody would pick up the phone and call the plaintive employee before making the decision to terminate this cork first district reversed the commission and said notwithstanding this disbelieve however this is reading from this court's opinion however there is nothing in the order in or by the commission  to focus on what was it in the order by the commission which suggests that the hospital stated reason for discharging complain it was a pretext or discrimination ok rather the commission found that the explanation was issue of revenue whether those the court is getting into an area that is left to the discretion of the employer in this context of course or not to second guess the employers the courts and not to sit as a super personnel