well that's the district side of the story mr reeves side of the story is that those meetings came about because he was making complaints about how he was being treated jack holguin one of his supervisors actually documented in one of the memos that the meeting came about as a result of accosted by the supervisor yelled at by the supervisor telling him to get out of there and go to the meeting a jury should be allowed to cuba to determine whether these reasons are actually two reasons for the terminations or whether they're false and they're made up just to  discriminatory motor oh there is a couple of other disciplinary issues that were brought up and mr reed allegedly misplaced an invoice again this is not documented anywhere in the two thousand here question a lot of oh a lot of the points you're making and i understand why are focusing on the comparative treatment or lack of treatment by supervisors of coworkers of your client does the record contain and if so where in the record is the disciplinary history of those coworkers reed's testimony and i was getting to this point that for example his or reprimand was done out in the open at the same time that these two female coworkers were observed laughing and also  workplace does the record contain for example the employment files of these other individuals it doesn't contain any disciplinary actions against them and we did make that allegation is one of our statement on the remaining counts of plaintiffs appellants comply i'm to be clear there are two complaints of of harassment one has to do with race one has to do with gender and then there was also a complaint of retaliation i do want to address they found was that this was a comment that was made by a man supervisory employee who was talking to her boss conversation that the plaintiff was not involved in and she was teasing her boss because he claiming that she was being whipped into shape by his wife who had put him on a very serious regiment of physical exercise regiment and eating regiment the other comment came about almost two years later and that was when i know others on supervisory coworker had had  come across mr seymour really well he was coming in with a bad lunch and the employees said what kind of chicken do you have again mr seymour read complained an investigation was immediately conducted by human resources and  it found that the comment was not racially motivated and it was not in violation of the district's policy that was the last comment the last complaint that was made prior to almost two years later mr seymour r his is terminated there were no allegations of any harassing or discriminatory discriminatory comments made by any supervisors and certainly not the supervisors who were responsible for the discipline and  a genuine issue of material material fact there are no other complaints made by hand despite the fact that he was told if you had any other concerns he could he should go to his manager jack hogan hogan or he should go to h r with those complaints with respect to the gender discrimination claim there was no complaint during his employment that he was subjected to any kind of gender discrimination other than he made the comment that he was the only male in the department only non supervisory ma lawyer about his performance and what she perceived as a lack of documentation on his performance the reality is there are some pretty extensive documentation here the district has a philosophy of trying to implement corrective action trying to work with somebody rather than going directly to to disciplinary action he received over a period of about a year there were several meetings regarding some of his insubordinate comments to a supervisor he was in those meetings management with management was in those meetings and there were discussions about his performance issues his refusal to perform some of his job functions those meetings were documented in memoranda they were not disciplinary they were counseling trying to get him behavior repeatedly and the issue of the excessive salt on which i want to address this was a mandatory training counsel misspoke it was not something that he got his supervisor required him to go six hour mandatory training and it was recorded by a third party not one of our employees a third party contractor who was holding the training that the plaintiff was on his phone entirely throughout the six the six hour training you described it tell me what the levels of informants are there's a there's a meeting expectations and exceeds expectations and it does not meet expectations perfect no perfect is not one of them now to clarify there are plenty of counsel said that there was a performance appraisal that was done in two thousand and fourteen that was not completed until after his determination that is not correct there was a twenty fifteen performance appraisal that was not completed until after his determination his twenty four team proposal performance appraisal actually showed that he did not meet expectations in several of the that was where the district court judge really found that there was a problem here that there were there was no evidence provided on comparables it off and in fact when he asked if he could provide similarly situated individuals who were treated differently than him who were of a different race in a different sex he stated during his deposition that there were no similarly situated employees who did exactly the same thing as him so the question about whether that had been any evidence in the record to support that reasonable fact finder to conclude that the plaintiffs gender and race in this case caused the discharge or other adverse employment action and of course there was no the evidence in this case was that there was a pattern of discipline  was followed by discipline for the same types of behavior that repeated over and over again that the allegations of discrimination the only two and that's all there was during his employment were a year and a so we believe that under mcdonnell douglas test which judge normal applied in this case that the that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy that he reasonably performed the job in accordance with the employer's reasonable job expectations or course he was people unable to provide that similarly situated employees were treated differently there was no evidence of any kind of discredits any kind of discipline that was issued to anybody else for the site same type of behavior the reason being is nobody it was sixteen gender i'm starting to raise my apologies and argued i don't think the deposition testimony the district court is allowed to exclude all of the every other evidence in the record