based on age and let me tell you why the evidence that was presented in the district court had both direct and indirect evidence and here's the direct  outsource composite manufacturing boeing determined that it nevertheless needed the ability to repair modify enhanced and redesign certain seven one seven composite part to prevent outsourcing problems now what do we know about the facts of this case that judge the judge has had in front of her we know that castle or anything caster both testified that and later on when they're basically finished the set up work for the older because no do see in line it becomes the seven seventeen they used to need less and less composite work they need more and more sheet metal work so in paragraph thought was they were still doing a lot of work in the cockpit and why were they lame him after we talked about that and i understand the  we're looking at a period of january two thousand to november of two thousand that that actually is a true fact if you were to look at the totality of the record that was presented to the trier to a lower court she actually the judge stanley actually got a different back she got the fact that mr phillips had been previously supervising as many as one hundred sixty three employees that mr philips was asked to go to this blue streak which was a smaller unit created by paul we just to deal with problems that would come from outsourcing the composite parts not to tell me that you're creating a unit that start composite materials do you keep the person the only deals with machine factory things or do you keep someone that knows not just the machine operation but also is the  here he was he was he testified that that he was told well you're an old man you've been around you've been doing this for a long time something of let me go out the composite issue in this fashion more never contended i think does not now contend that the blue streak did no composite work they did some and i suspect while the time of the events kind of cut off of this case they continued to do composite work what they can hand is that if forced to choose the twenty nine euros and they didn't they weren't faced with there's none of the compounds work and tireless sort of call machine or metal work but rather that there wasn't by comparison very much composite work and that's the contention in your i don't think anybody's contending that there was no composite work and in your honor we cannot suppose that that that what is little a little bit what is the plan it is no one at boeing defined except for the persons that that they let that they let go now say this very clearly it's very obvious that mr philips was a dedicated and highly skilled employee and is prepared from a number of things including lee's called mr hammer to him say hey what do i do  machine shop now there's been no testimony presented to this court to explain what an expert in machine shop is because clearly the evidence dispensed of that was to minute to the lower court and to this court defined what mr philips expertise was from machine shop all the way up to composite but no one has brought that for and that's the reason why we believe it created a triable issue i'm not asking discrimination cases most recently we explained that we require very little evidence to survive summary judgment in the discrimination case because the ultimate question is one that can only be emphasis facial expression whether somebody has her figure whether they're winking or whether they're laughing or whether they're they're weeping might have a bearing on how one could construe that statement  to home and i understand that it would seem that since the evidence indicated that he said in a jovial manner according to mr phillips own testimony it was not meant t initially retained mr phillips was the same individual individual that return and moreover there's been no evidence to indicate you know declarations indicate that given the announced work that remain there was more work that was needed not on the fabric loop on the composite fabrication side wrong that still psyched and mr nino's did that plus there's no evidence to suggest that that the five remaining unionized workers who are would have been discrimination had we said to mister phillips we're retaining a composite person and you know nothing about some positive you simply unqualified for this job but we didn't do that we acknowledge that mr that mr phillips had excellent skills but we also acknowledged that he didn't have the skills necessary in our business judgment to perform the remaining of the work that needed to be done on it with respect to the blue streak department and i just found the number fifty five thousand and nine that was the offer and he had been making seventy one thousand lines seventy three layoff there were just unfortunate reductions in force by two thousand and three there was only seven hundred people let left working at the long beach facility in commercial districts just take us out because i don't know it's not in the record age discrimination is an intentional act it's it's not one shouldn't second guess what is a legitimate business decision there's nothing to indicate in this record that that the decision makers acted with age animals the statistics show that the decisions that were may have no relation to ones age those posted to six remain unrefuted there's nothing to indicate that anybody who went through a process that intentionally when leaving people that were over the age of forty or fifty or sixty in fact the evidence of this to the contrary the myth the mere fact that somebody you if you have any questions for me i would be more than happy to answer them as i was the trial court and i was the one that got the decision against me in the lower court no question