differently and he did yes he did in his testimony assert that he was transferred and placed on a ninety day probationary period and that white employees were not players who were transferred were not similarly placed on a probationary period other that other whites were not now the hospital is not itself present any evidence to contradict mr logan with claims and let me if i can point to the testimon reason i'm asking is that i wasn't clear that he did show that there was any treatment of him that was different from certainly understand with different races so i want to look at  you and also if you try in a few pages later this will be transcript page ninety seven which is the accepted record sixty three mr logan discusses how he was given extra duties that were not given to white employees when they were transferred to different jobs ultimate dismissal i just followed up those references you showed me and it doesn't say that the people he says he knows that some people weren't put on a ninety day appraisals if you don't say that they were very different  settle to return to your question he did present to us when he was provided that he received adequate job of valuations and furthermore his theory of the case is that he was transferred he was not given the appropriate training to perform his attempt to introduce should have been allowed into the record as a public records exception of the hearsay rule eight zero three eight but the district court refused to admit on the  furthermore the district court and a prior ruling on summary judgment in dismissing certain results of motion brought by the hospital commended the anguish your rights report as being a quote detailed presentation of facts and analysis and concluded that the report quote has probable value and raises questions of material fact regarding the thing that's alleged discriminatory treatment of logan and the court gave no reason why relied upon and reports exception to the hearsay rule yes that would appear to cover the factual findings if there are any but it doesn't appear to cover opinions and conclusions of the investigator do you posturing in this case was just of hate barely over a page long letter did not respond to any facts really whatsoever it just said that a probable cause determination had been had been made by the e e o c if something like that would be clearly this report satisfies any rule for over three objections the problem of the value clearly outweighs the danger of any unfair prejudice pressure that's harmful plus non profits and here they report the report in redacted or to omit legal conclusions whether there is any prejudice to logan from from excluding it seems like it undermines his proof if you please on the critical point well i think mr logan's testimony was that the hospital is not following its policy but they had a certain policy of placing white on probation that they should have had a policy in which white employees who were transferred were placed on a probationary period but that in fact the that he and only one other black individual were who are long term employees were placed on probation and then fired where is the only two whites who were placed on probation period and fired were short term employees they were not long term employees they would have contributed to his claim of disparate treatment he tried his witnesses they couldn't see where they actually i couldn't see where he or they had much personal knowledge to support what they were saying the other witnesses basically are prepared to say that the hospital mistreated them in various ways yes the relevance appears to be so why there attribute of a racial motive here is to be unsupported it know what she's doing is attributing bigotry to people that she may or may not be acquainted with not on the basis of anything that they've any remarks that they've made or or sign out whenever she left even go to the bathroom and that this was not required of what employees so i do think that she presented direct evidence of a racial anim good morning if there's a court and i'm here on behalf of the defendant alaska regional hospital why why wouldn't you make this prima facie case on whether whites were treated differently from lax based on the testimony that your adversary pointed to where he says whites weren't subjected to a ninety day probation period well certainly that that is one thing that may have gone to westchester constraining the crime of pressure case but certainly the important factor one of the most important factors in this case is whether or not there w evidence that he was in fact performing his job adequately at the time that the ads are some form of action was taken by his own testimony after trial he was having problems for of his terminations in one thousand nine hundred eighty and he had been relieved of the receptionist duties that were so shaded with the general office clerk position by that time that position it's not he wasn't before the address the exclusion of the critical rights commissions report first of all that report was never intended by the commission to be a public document it was marked confidential document is not available to the public it is not a public document the commission the anchorage equal rights commission took the position when we requested copies of their file documents in this case that they did not have to produce that that it requires what you're attributing to it you know you know three just get the rule in front of indicates that there's a defeat of trustworthiness if you will that excludes it from the hearsay because it's created pursuant to law it's created pursuant to establish the agency procedures which would indicate and invest case that something was in fact completed by an impartial investigator and all of those things go to trustworthy impartial i'm saying that this particular report wasn't created under any authority of law that is granted to the agency for several reasons not the least of which has their own the city ordinances that that pursuant to authority granted by law in this memorandum there is no authority in the ordinances that would give any credence to this document because by ordinance wholly the executive director can issue these types of reports this report was not issued by an executive director there also required to distribute them to the parties they were not for human rights and the i believe we would find out here on anchorage municipal code of regulations five forty  and i'm i'm sorry i think i do not see it now however we do know that this report was and its recommendation was never served on parties in fact the agency refused to provide  anchorage municipal code of regulation seems to be that the state prepares to report and propose recommendations served on the parties get a chance to make responses the stare can schedule additional fact finding then at the end of the fact additional fact finding the staff recommends to the executive director here if you make a determination that the complainer is or is not supported then the executive director makes a determination and what you're saying is judgment and it was supported by an affidavit and included the report not report but the documents a list of documents have been produced business that's correct and as as you pointed out your honor in five forty zero four the the staff makes a recommendation to the executive director and the executive director you have to instance to a traffic accident can go entertain a copy of that place reports there's never any claim of privily for made in fact the agency that created this very document has essentially declared that it is not public and refused to produce it ok to i do not believe that was placed in evidence your honor but i would have to look back at the apple app to record the consent decree of course did not contain any could be any finding or admission the jury but once again the determination of whether or not correct a verdict of proper is whether or not the jury at the close of his case could have concluded from the evidence before all of the elements that were necessary witnesses to determine if they had any evidence that would tend to support his claim that he was discriminated against on the basis of race i think the easiest  employment that occurred in an unrelated department of the hospital mr wilson a mr logan did not work together they did know each other in passing mr wilson was not in a position to testify as to whether or not any discriminatory acts have in fact been suffered by mr logan and more importantly mr wilson had sued the hospital following his termination his case was dismissed for lack of evidence by the same trial judge who presided in mr logan's case yet it seems to go without saying that to permit him to then get on the stand again complained that he was a victim of discrimination when it had been concluded that he was not there was no evidence of it it simply wouldn't be evidence it would be proper to present to the jury the other two employees not in the same place or not in the same time what may have happened to them during the course of their earlier employment simply not relevant to what may have happened to mr logan it was within the sound discretion of the court to the ninety day probation period and blacks were in the report says that that's not true that everybody was subject to the ninety day probation period and i agree trial so it's hard to say whether he's improved and the only evidence on that was evidence by or evidence in logans testimony where he says blacks were and whites warrant but he doesn't feel that he has any personal knowledge for that and then the report says the contrary and i'm wondering whether exclusion of those parts of the report that would be admissible would have helped rather than hurt him because that protected him from being contradicted by the report on the critical point well certainly it may have gone ultimately to his credibility but again i think that's a question for the jury i don't think that's a question to be decided at the directed verdict stage