construction company for two years in according to the reviews of the prevention and compliance officer who oversaw its training programs she had a good two very good performance record but she made complaints of unequal pay as a roman scarab investigation in july of two thousand and fifteen and early august was just some random talk with a coworker about her wages but the record disclosed and it was her name mr paine statisticians who are both company officials at the time a majority of other officials mr paine was the heritage human resources that she was making a complaint then natural officers of the company charged with investigating complaints of this nature time sheets which i think are reflected on pages were ninety six of the ninety seven of the joint appendix mr talcott worked about eighty hours in july of two thousand and fifteen we don't have the benefit of his time sheets from and saw a job where he was working that was wrapping up at the time but if you look at the time interest in agast of ten thousand and fifteen dollars mr tackett is working two hundred dollars and some odd hours it's about double filling in here and there but then he went back to arkansas finished the job up in arkansas and then suddenly on twenty four hours notice hey come on up to kansas we need you full time i think that's what that the reasonable inference from the record would be companies records reflected the next year as well as a very good employee at the time that she was laid off well the focus on in terms of the timeline your honor the issue of protected primarily as a laborer but she was promoted at some point to a quality control trainee position in that position she had varying levels of performance she certainly was coded from time to time as good very good but there is undoubtedly mistakes that were made with respect to her performance and the plates of herself acknowledges that she made mistakes while doing that job and some of those were severe with a spec to her allegation that she was terminated and her terminations somehow retaliates were the evidence in the record simply does not support that mr burns was working at a job site and prachanda us in august of two thousand and fifteen at that time that job began to wind down and that is simply undisputed your honour's the records that we have produced show that the hours on that job reduced dramatically the records that we were we show reflect that the numbers of workers were reduced dramatically and the probably most relevant testament on this testimony herself where she talks about the type of work that she is doing immediately prior to the end of her employment is tearing down the job site she is getting rid of equipment that is no longer going to be used because she understands that that base of the job is over with and that the company's going to move in on so her and every other employee who worked there was given the opportunity to transfer to another job and it is undisputed the she was offered that opportunity and she was told that because this job is winding down we're going to have to move to somewhere else she decided that she didn't want to move the new jobs in the bras accept that position did not do anything to ask for another one there's no follow up from her by email or otherwise ask for positions other than the brassica one and at some point the company becomes aware that she has found other employment and consistent what the policy of the company and this is included several places in the record company's policy because it is a construction company is to routinely lay off workers and bring them back mrs burns herself had been subject to this a couple times while she had worked there she had been laid off she had applied for unemployment when work had had come back around or had increased she was called back and so in this instance rather than falling for unemployment or whether than wait in the period out she almost immediately sought other employment and she by her own testimony in her deposition she tells david vestal that saw i can't do this anymore that the unemployment and the taking unemployment during these down times just isn't enough for me and she says she can't do it anymore and that's her prerogative she certainly is how they do that but david vestal then understands that she doesn't want the job that he's offered her and she doesn't want the job admission is that she immediately started looking for another job she is a true another job early september she not only you know what to go get a part time job or you know work in a seven hundred and eleven dollars or something she goes and get certified to become a schoolteacher it seems that job and relays that information to cost and so b in a way of this information cost as they had done not just with her but with several other employees they code her as a voluntary quit they code her as having found other employment and they also code her as not eligible for rehire and the testimony and this is from alan payne the person the plaintiff counsel referenced before plan characterized the no rehire our designation as violence causes policies it is not at all over the policies it's actually completely consistent with them alan payne the person who he describes as the human resources director or director testified under oath that there are a lot of times when people are marked not eligible for a higher because they found other employment so that's the application of the policy that's how it is applied that's how it had been applied and his testimony directly was that having a lot of times that you know washes over an employee and black balls in them or or makes them somehow never eligible to work there again in fact the employees that mr keenan's referred to we produced evidence of employees that were marked out as before  not mean what they say what they believe it means and the evidence in the record shows that our application of the policy with mrs burns is consistent with how we applied the policy in the past how it applied its a man and how it applied to people that had never made any kind of complaint so the other thing that you admit though that it seems a little odd to have a box that says not eligible for rehire when in fact the policy is you are eligible to rehire yeah and you're o nature of the job is such that there are people who take this job and believe that i perhaps aggressive green on the other side and they go look for other jobs but it is very calm it's a pretty high paying job it is a seasonal thing and it is very common and there's testimony of this back it's very common that people can get a job that works in the interim but it doesn't pay at the rate of the cost so when they hear that costs back way and roads and doing things they come back and they go to work for them and we've got scores and scores of people that do that very thing so and so i'm not fallen so that again is there any evidence that someone who was known to have taken another job was coded as eligible for rehire i'm certain that probably happened at some point i'm just trying to see if this is because i think the way you're explaining it the policy is if they take another job they're not eligible for rehire well and you're out of the truth of it is that's not always communicated so the form that mr keene is referring to it's a form that has approximately ten boxes on the top and it has all kinds of things from found other employment they moved they don't want to you know transfer it has and number of items and that's just one of them and to be honest with you judge we sometimes don't get anything  on a couple times that she states unemployment is not enough that's written on the form found another job that's written on the form and again if you go to missionize testimony herself she states that i told him those things so it isn't a stretch to believe that we knew those and understood them and job because she she didn't want to work that supervisor and that he apparently had made a pass at her some point in the past what is important to point out to the court with the fact that that is in her testimony  deposition i asked her if she had ever explained to mr prior to being offered this position if she had ever explained to mr vestal that this gentleman had made a pass at her that she was uncomfortable working pram such it not so at the that she isn't sure about the time frame whenever it was whenever it was said it was certainly said before mr vestal offered this job to mrs yarn so with respect to mr vestal and what his motivations are and whether he was in fact retaliate against her it wipes away any notion that even if he said that statement that he acted on it when after he allegedly was told it he then offers her an unconditional and then one last thing your honor that i want to speak to expect to the job in the comment from planets council that's she was never offered a different position or an alternative position you know this court is not to say that as a super personnel department and to dictate to cost how it's run its business or what it should do i think the notion of plaintiffs trying to give poor it is that when mr yearns says i know you've offered me a job but i don't want to take it that they have some kind of duty to say well how about a job in kalamazoo michigan how about we send you to florida how about was into california they don't have the duty to do that and there is no evidence that they ever did that for anybody else so the burden is not on them to come up with a job that she likes there is no testimony as they ever did that for anybody in fact the testimony with us back to mr tackett shows that he was a twenty year employee and when his boss called him and told him come the price he went to price he didn't act is just completely unfounded there is no evidence of that in the again undisputed records show that mr tackett had worked at that prep plant before and again using not cos his words but using mrs germans word she describes the work that she is doing at pratt middle before she separated from employment and she's not doing quality control work she's not doing the quality tech job she is not in a lab she is not sifting through samples of gravel she is not testing those for accuracy and compliance with a contract she is doing tear down work and that is not something that mr talcott ever does so the notion that he was somehow something to replace her is contrary to the records in the case and it's also contrary