get started i want to know one adjustment in the calendar the case that has been listed second on our agenda for today carmody against the board of trustees of the university of illinois will be heard last today and everything under today's consist of the white man with a lot of experience and legal background what degree college education doing essentially the same jobs as black man without the same amount of education no as a law clerk payroll system in great number fourteen and mr taylor you compare it to the black man who was listed as a legal systems analyst paygrade twenty two how long do you work there mr go thousand and five you came back five or six years later and then he was placed into this century the same position as mr gower and it's to transfer issue that is really one of the key pieces of the case with t great twenty two significantly more dollars ok that it's when he discovered that that he said he discovered it in a conversation with the supervisor who said you're paid less than mr taylor and then he wrote a letter to the chief judge in which one of the paragraphs indicated a significant difference in pay and so their justification for doing that is that when mr taylor came back from one point he had quit the job he was unemployed for a while can find jobs he went to work for the secretary of state who ran for the on our state senate which and you know him for him first he ran for the state legislature and lost yesterday and then went to work for the secretary of state political job and then he said that he couldn't find a job so for a period of five or six years he did that work for the county when he came back to the county that five or six years was he working for a security not completely it's not clear one how long he worked for the secretary of state or number two how what his duties were but it is clear he wasn't doing legal work of any kind he didn't have any legal analysis work so he came back as a in the job then as legal systems analyst and he was paid a great twenty two not that great twenty the chief judge takes to position that their job search are frozen at where you were when left but it's very clear when he came back he was paid a twenty two not a great twenty in their transfer policy which is really their basis for saying this was a budget image non discriminatory reason for maintaining this pay difference look this transfer policy comes to the court by way of an affidavit of sharon hoffman and that affidavit forms wages so when you got transferred to a job from another job you'll be paid at the same level you were in the past century she said employees you transfer from other departments within the office of the chief judge keep  pay grade and are placed in a position that fills an operational need and fits the skills and abilities of the transfer of the police to district judge accepted that is the basis for the  she supposed to do well she could have used the job what it policy there is historical policy that is testified determine whether or not the jobs are equal whether or not they deserve the same pet dementor goal had such an audit of his job no there was no it's a matter of fact mr was new ski said he did not said she was asked you think would be prudent for the human resource officer such as yourself to have knowledge of the differences the job oh is that something that's typically done the answer was it is prudent for a human resource transfer policy when he moved into the social services department would you address that issue yes there is no transfer policy we indicated to be in the appendix at eighty eight to ninety four we ask specifically for information of the policy in europe there was no part of the answer was there was no policy in second with respect to the other employees there's no solid evidence with good foundational testimony morning may please court mr dallas theory of this case is straightforward he claims that he suffered from racial discrimination soley because he was paid not paid excuse anything from which a reasonable jury could infer the same as this court said and that testament adding together a string of nothing still yields nothing and that's in the record in her deposition she clearly stated that she had no authority or power over her paper so that is a legitimate reason and to mr gollop has the burden of proving that she didn't take action because of racial animus or racial discrimination and he has failed to provide any evidence to she repeats fairly often that people who look like him she had to fight through them for a pro career or something like that whatever it is and he's the feels that some indication of racial  but cognisance in that you know that was she was it it didn't i suppose where people have been she had fighter way through weight people whatever that implies that seems to be with he's using is some kind of indication of animists agree drawn or and i think the most important thing to know about that is in his deposition mr gollop clearly stated that he was specifically asked about that statement or those statements and mr gallas specifically said he did not think they were racially motivated that is crystal clear in his testimony he says they were disgusting they were mean they were inappropriate but he's clearly says they were not racially motivated so that that statement provides him no comfort nor does it provide him any evidence to suggest that the pay differential between mr gollop and mr taylor was motivated by race discrimination or racial animus and we you know we cite a number of cases in our brief that discuss statements and the the law in this circuit is clearly established that statements have to be made by decision maker they points showing a little more flexibility about what it does need to be somebody who is really involved in decision making processes why isn't a direct supervisor who has the ability to bump up the issue to her superiors why why wouldn't her attitudes be relevant here it wouldn't your honor for a couple reasons one is again she stated clearly in her deposition that she has no power to  change or directly in fact or she doesn't have unilateral power with and that's understood but that's rare in a lot of organizations but let let's suppose an immediate supervisor said i'm not going to push you for a promotion because of your she was a white crane operator and he was laid off and he was told by his supervisors day he was being laid off because he was white and they needed more non whites on the on the crane job that's not the situation that we have here and in fact again you know we cite a number of cases where comments are made by for example in the chef a case the chief of police made a number of racial remarks racially tends remarks saying that he did not want  white police officers on the police force black police chief and the the court still found that those statements were not sufficient to show discriminatory intent because of problems two and three that they were not made close in time to any employment decision nor were they in reference to any employment decision and i think that that's exactly what we have here your honor we have a situation where mr gallo doesn't provide any context any time frame or any other way for us to determine when miss whitehead made those statements and he and as a result we certainly have no evidence in the record to suggest that those statements were made anywhere near the time that the pay differential was set or when mr gallo raised it nor do we could not that he could not have been discriminating against her because of her gender but the premise there seems to be of a person is not sexist racist or something at time one and he won't racial or gender or other unlawfully animists to a particular decision time we generally wouldn't let that go to a jury but i think your principal argument here if i understand it correctly is the ms white employees that in the social services department that we identified that were paid significantly below mr gallup they were roughly around great ten great eleven of those seventeen ten wrapped in america not clear about that whether that's even a comparable that probably maybe not there were but that but since you brought it up by swayze curious is there any indication that is the i didn't see anything that more and is there any indication that he was trying to improve himself to get a higher pay grade other than in comparing himself to mr tudor there's not your honor there's in fact nothing in the record to demonstrate  thousand what he was transferred into the department in two thousand and four and the first time he raised any issue about his salary was in two thousand and nine and it was only in relation to mr taylor's degrading in the meaning it's the essence of racism and the comment was vanessa numerous occasions not just one street remark numerous occasions said all my life people have been standing in my way and of the supervisor being able to recommend pity rick perry questions he was asked so is it your position that someone possessing a law license in illinois doing research would be entitled to a great sixteen job to answer was no why is that well the word  title i guess and that's where the district court stopped the analysis looking at the word i guess but it goes on to say would have to be recommended by the person that supervised them that's a statement that the supervisor has a little then on of other page eight to twenty three she was asked who decides which employees are paid twenty two great twenty two in the chief judge's office he said it would have been all the supervisors throughout his past so the supervisors have a role with respect to the recommendation of paper questions in terms of the flexibility that the court's referring to we call your attention to what first the city of mark and over a period of four years the mayor had made statements about black officers and the