eighty the remedy under law eighty was paying a certain payment and the payment was paid good now i e you sir have some suggestion you brace of the payment amount was not sufficient right and i'll come back to that but just so i understand the statute do agree that if they made a statutory payment and you have no law eighty dollars clay no your honor we believe that it is assume the law one hundred dollars claim is gone that there's no discrimination and we're dealing with the law eighty claim that i got a judge howard's question on just the law eighty claim at all opposition to the summit judgment but we also presented it in our opposition to the a statement that i think that the fact well what were the amounts that you calculated they were higher amounts your honor because we were so we can do that because i didn't see any calculations so they paid eight hundred and twenty thousand and twenty one in sixty eight to the other what's the amount that you say should be owed under lardy or i don't have but you just don't remember what the numbers are i don't your honor i'm sorry counsel we have used up not only most but all of your time with our questions why don't you take another couple of minutes to wrap up then you have reserves some time however there may be additional questions as you go along so so two more minutes seniority was mike and is not contained in any part of the union in order was not addressed at all and it shouldn't be part of the criteria that that court is used to is that it if there was this in discrimination or not have presented no evidence from which a jury could have fair that they were either terminator or not selected for the newly created positions because of their age st as the district court correctly found there is no evidence of a direct evidence of age discrimination there were some comments that were alleged of this court and all others have found consistently that the type of commas that were alleged are age neutral and do not demonstrate evidence of direct evidence of a certain that certainly not the case as for mister mendez who was only one year older than two of the in the laws that were selected and in fact a couple of months older frankly that one of those two individuals and the rd individual who was selected was also over  or that were not selected for the newly created positions that would report into the south district of florida because during the interview process the decision makers that turn in that other candidates were better suited for deposition given the needs of the company at the time again the individuals who were selected were all over forty two of them only one year again or actually months younger than mister mann this and both decision makers were over d age of forty need in terms of whether or not a severance obligation is triggered with respect to the law any claim yes after during the just cos and again which on here do reorganization as ms vega pointed out seniority because they were reporting into a different this trip to a different supervisor and had different goals and objectives and would be focusing on different products but this court doesn't need to find that there was just cost and their loyalty to this ms that claim or below one hundred dollars claim for that so they have failed to raise any ship factor respect to the accura so counsel i'm not suggesting anything here at least not yet but if the if there is a disputed if there are disputed amounts of under the law eighty claim  and nothing to do with the substantive merits but just the amounts when we think one is sixty seven thousand dollars plus up two hundred and eighty five thousand in the other is eighty two thousand plus up to some other amount if if that nondiscriminatory response for determination of non selection this is not the same as just cos under lowy the supreme court a puerto rico has already said several times that i don't justify terminations under law eighty is not the here so we're prepared to decide the issues that are brought in front of us but if there is any inclination on the part of the parties to attempt to settle the law eighty claims  we offer our court mediator judge court arrow will be available if you need it all you have to do is let us know or just go directly to the mediator or let the clerk of court know if you wish to take that issue off the assuming you're right that that these were the same positions and your honor i want to thank you if you thought the calculation isn't correct you should just spell it out precisely and hand it to them your honor what happened is that if they are not able to order to decide the law one hundred dollars issue in this case the law eighty issue must also be decided and what i'm hearing is that it would be helpful to your side if the law a t u shoe were decided in your favor but i haven't heard that it is absolutely required you could under law one hundred prevail if there was no just cause as well that in other words it would be the same evidence that would support the discrimination claim is that the the offer to the offer that we made earlier that if counsel wishes to talk about resolving that issue that's certainly up to you but thank you ok thank that concludes argument in this case attorney fake an attorney rodriguez you should disconnect from appearing at this time