dispute over the interpretation of the document there's a dispute over whether certain acts were adverse employment actions or not all of these were really province of the jury and not t judge in a food court truly found disputed issues of fact then it should have denied the motion for summary judgment and permitted the employment discrimination employment retaliation case to proceed to trial where there could be a full airing of the evidence a determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the allegations of discrimination and television could be determined by the jury the proper parties the proper fact finder  denied the right to attend educational seminars he had no the ministry to support for them or after he testified at trial he was removed from his lonely cubicle his was taken away and he was forced as a manager to shuttle around southern california when not less than two years ago he had managed departments he'd many people he was with vauxhall for a great many more the diary i don't i don't know exactly what transpired all i know is that he was pulled out of the deposition session and paraded for testifying that shown not only by the temporal proximity between the time he testified at trial and the time he was terminated was only short months the time between his deposition testimony and these other events that i've mentioned we showed that they made a six million dollars profit in the third quarter of two thousand and one they were profitable for to the year two thousand and one those two facts alone your honor should add at least the reasonable inference that there is no financial distress testified or there was evidence in the record that he said they were right on track now you have two high ranking management officials saying they're right on track you have documentary evidence that they're profitable that certainly doesn't seem like a was a full time he'd been there for eight years you're on a good manager manage people so yes full time employed at a deposition a year after a year after the and then this layoff particular memo the author of it all of a sudden realize fully made a mistake it should have been i could layoff full time employees that issue alone between the the black and white layoffs procedure which acknowledged in his testimony he was not going to terminate managers what was the only manager in a western region terminated in the latter part of two thousand and one and that he was wards car rental agencies were in bankruptcy at this time making six million dollars in the quarter we made thirty six million dollars last year is an eighty four percent drop off in profits and some suggesting that because you make a probable therefore what you did you shouldn't have done is by definition contradictory because if they had done everything they had done they would not have made it six million dollars profit nevertheless eighty eighty four percent reduction whether there was a financial disaster the argument is to give it six million bucks and any time you make a profit you must not have a reason that is that's merely an argument that's not a administrative positions not dealing with customers mr wood all those categories yes he was the manager there were three managers laid off in southern california in the same quarter part five employees got laid off of a higher percentage of the full time employees rangers also got laid off he can say he shouldn't pick me but he's got to have a nexus to the has to do with my age because hundreds of people got laid off including others in los angeles let me let me just take you to another example of what concerns me about the district court judge's order here and we have to reach the judgment that he fellow to get to trial what more does he have to do let me explain direct statements were certainly none of those are the only reason we're we're not we're not reliving you go because you're too old let me respond this you know it's difficult it difficult to get into people's minds and you have to look at all the circumstances there is no credibility dispute about the protocol or the guy who wrote it said when it got merged it was a typographical mistake nobody else said it's not supposed to  say no full time employees the guy who wrote it said that was a mistake and everybody else to test the mr would never said that was a mistake that's all credibility dispute about that it's just not in that particular document we're going to her but of all the people come in they were not happy that's what new management does it shakes things up we're not embarrassed to say when we brought in the new management team we made a lot of changes and if we as managers decide to do certain things whether we take away joe's computer or mo you say old management and new management when you say we need some new blood we should be proud of that because that's what industry does when it's unhappy it seems when a new management team they make changes and if you don't like the fact is you don't have  no direct evidence of discrimination the fact that you say we want new but the fact that i get one when i was in college i gave in my fifty's and i intend to keep giving it that's going to be new blood to whoever gets that the old administration the new administration there's no direct  saying what he said was wrong but more specifically what material facts are we're looking at here  i want to turn briefly to the leave out questions which we really haven't talked about it doesn't matter whether or not he was on leave at the time there's a claim here that he was somehow denied driving out from l a next from l a which is where the regional headquarters is to meet with him he knows it's not good news he's heard they're going to do layoffs he hasn't done anything in writing that morning before the guy gets there he starts dialing frantically to prior there's no there's no discrimination because he came and asked for a leave the decision was made ahead of time he's got to show some evidence that there was an interstate speed and the clerk at the standard wrong but again it doesn't matter because are they were the ones over forty the new ones coming in susan is not forty years old he's younger than forty they get rid of the forty year old and bring the thirty eight year old in which case they those are the statements that we had to be explained skinner and those are the statements that lead as counsel put forth in their papers to the settlement in the case so sure if that was the only thing but we stroke he knew that he needed for the time to recover and they hadn't terminated him you know nine eleven happened as terminations happened two months later they'd already gone through are not going to mince words there there's no additional damages i mean there is the attorney fees clause which is which is part and parcel of that i don't see any additional damages but what we what the parliament did with the families act