yes the record shows that two thousand and fifteen she has signed up on job websites put in filters so that they d will spend her jobs she searched the internet for jobs and she  is that she's seeking for pay or a period amounts to years and ten months as if she couldn't be employed by anybody else you know acceptable position and then she starts to believe if she's as capable as she prefers aims to be she didn't make much effort to find another job the defense didn't put up much of a evidence on that neither side seemed to take this issue very seriously and i used to try cases i understand that that wasn't the focus of the efforts but now we're looking at the question of is a reasonable overt to be paid we're nearly nine years on the premise that she couldn't get another job entire career since just after high school working for the western wear industry and your chain is offering jobs that require extensive experience in the wireless retail industry or seven years experience and in two thousand and fourteen jeans were told misspell that it was transitioning her to another sales all with the same d target compensation this appeal turns on three choices that mr l made in response to that transition st she decided resign because she wanted a different one hundred and thirteen thousand dollars a year sales job nd after resigning she failed to look for work both of those decisions as a total independent bar to back in this case the  decision that misspell made is she authorized her attorneys to spend nearly two million dollars suing genes where in this single plain to employment case where she achieved only limited success now mr bell's argument on appeal that you should ignore her choicest you should overrule your precedents and substitute your judgment that of the district court all because miss l prevailed on one of her five employment claims but the law the policy supporting title seven the one claim on which she did it she partial success do not support miss bell this court in the supreme court recognized that the goal of title seven is cooperation voluntary compliance and  not lawsuits we don't know what ms bell could have accomplished in her job in jeans wear because she quit as soon as she learned that she would be selling jeans wares products to a different set of customers and we want to go to a shop what's your she was ineligible for baquet because she was unable to show constructive discharge three years later in the satterwhite case the court stated the rule directly and simply an employee who quits cannot secure back pay unless his employer constructively discharge him and six years after that in sanchez this court apply that rule in the demotion context misspells argument boils down to the idea that that's unfair but this court has explained that limiting back  has legitimate policy reasons in particular this court has said twice and i quote now the purposes of title seven are best served when the parties where possible attack discrimination within the context of their existing employment relationships and employee faced with an obstacle in the logical progression and development of a career should not quit at the st sign of institutional discrimination that's what misspelled it here as soon as she learned a discharge who has only one exception and that is failure to promote where the employer is trying to enter an entirely different career something as different as clerk typist police officer laundry accounted there is no exception demotion into the supreme court's explanation ford motor company but when the supreme court uses the word emotion there what it is talking about is a job is not substantially equivalent the kind of job is so different in kind th because the compensation rate yes it depends on sales through also a modifier that is the percentage of commission she earns jeans were dramatically increased the amount the percentage that she would own the sales in arizona so yes it is true it was a smaller volume of sales in arizona but her target compensation remain unchanged and indeed if we hold those facts constant look what actually happened she would have made more money in arizona based on the performance of that territory and she would have been working for boot par don't know what mr l would have accomplished in the arizona field sales or percentage of a role and i would focus your r s attention on the poland case where this court held that evidence of transfer and demotion is insufficient as a matter of law to show constructive discharge so even if this transfer was a demotion in the fullest sense of the word in that case poland that was an employee who lost his supervisory responsibilities that would still be insufficient to show constructive constructive discharge means she's categorically ineligible for baquet and that's true again for he can eat from satterwhite and sanchez the district court's reasoning in awarding back despite those two things i just said despite resignation and as by the absence of constructive discharge was for a lie in the supreme court's opinion ford motor company ford motor company was a decision about failure to hire there was no discussion in that case about termination go into a lot of work except a demotion or take at the meeting position now that line does not apply because miss bell was not unemployed or underemployed until she quit her job with jeans where and in the years demoted it was the court made the same reference in for now for it is a case in which the court found that one exception to the constructive discharge rule that is the plaintiff was seeking an entirely different career but before going on to explain why that exception was appropriate the court said that the mere fortuity that mr horn the plaintiff had a preexisting employment relationship did not take the case outside of the promotion or demotion cases that apply the doctor to construct discharge and again that was after ford motor the district court misspell and jeanne's where have not identified a single case in which any court of appeals has said there is an exception for the motions much less the motions of this potential character if it is a demotion is a very slight demotion it is changing the client's misspells serving even though it's the same products the same salary the same location and yes there was not a guarantee beyond the st year of what her compensation would be but no sales person ever got that guarantee target compensation was set one here at a time and we might have office eyes out what could have happened a year out but we don't know the answer because she removed herself from jeans where in doing so she forfeited any right to back pay in the absence of any case recognizing an exception for demotion cases is notable d given how well established the constructive you to make it and that has two elements it has failure is the one with reasonable diligence and it has the availability of substantially equivalent jobs that the district court found as a matter of fact  it's particularly discretionary what is a bench trial is not appreciate her raise a minor earlier and i appreciate your saying it was a close call i think you're right and i think three you know i don't understand how it all came out the way he did though he didn't show any specialized specialized industry is a person you know this is a sales job and even if you were to hyper define it as a sales job so in the western where is there in arizona this is the kind of thing that is easy to find other jobs available in that industry but what i really want to emphasize though is this is two steps removed from the starting point you have to find you ask because like a discharge rule and fund her failure to see with reasonable diligence is not a total war and a series of circuit courts have addressed that question what happens when a plaintiff asked without reasonable diligence but for the sake of discussion genes where fail to carry its burden the exception of one court one opinion every single court of appeals to reach that issue has said the employer is relieved of its duty to show alternative employment and the response to that is well the th circuit has said there's two prongs and that's true but each one of those other court of appeals have also relieved the employer also had two prongs you can see that perhaps it was clearly in the nd circuit's greenway decision or the court says the employee employer has the burden to show a lack of reasonable diligence and no substantial  pay and then of course a common sense meet the goal of title seven is to make the point that whole if the plaintiff does not seek other jobs sits at home and i didn't go out to look that is not making her whole is giving her a what all the court of appeals have held with the exception of the seven circuit and i direct your arms attention to the greenway decision where the courts says the employer must demonstrate i'm quoting now the suitable work existed in the marketplace and that its former employee made no reasonable effort to find it but the court goes on to say that an employer is released from the duty to establish the availability of comparable employment if they can prove that the employee made no reasonable efforts to seek such employment that's the rule that i'm advocating court adopt and i acknowledge it has not adopted that rule yet but nor has it rejected the only time that it's cooked come close to considering it and the odium a case the court said we need not reach that question because mr de mint did not fail to look for work well misspelled did fail to look for work the district court found that as a factual matter following the bench trial and so if this court were to hold that her resignation without constructive discharge were not a bar and again that's our strongest argument of looking for work what misspelled it is she set up consulting jobs for her family and friends and she spent nearly two million dollars suing jeanne's where the district court explained why it found that amount of money was in real time was unreasonable it i don't know how much money miss bell has spent on her attorneys i have no reason to doubt it but the district court here awarded her six hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees if she is worse off because of the amount of money her attorneys bill her for this case