one is the evidence and that race or age was the motivating factor of trust of all in terms of release long before all this happen people that they both had much much more experience with courts and that's what this job was about and you know it may be because the top towards through sixty since two thousand and thirteen when he came to it without any problem but more than anything else let me quickly i'll come back to the question but let me quickly touched on the issue of race and then go on to the issue of how do witches said differently good morning your honor is james gordon i'm behalf of the corporation council and app pelleas with the court's permission i'd like to focus on the claims that are still in play on appeal and i will begin with the city and federal failure to promote claims against the individual defendants that is specifically the appointment of a new division chief for the property damage division which ultimately went to judith british scarring and the division chief position of school claims in june two hundred and sixteen that went to ross goldband this record a stablish is beyond a doubt that a stablished legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for why those two individuals were appointed to those positions i will not belabor the qualifications but they are evident in the resumes in the record and the contemporaneous notes of their interviews at that point it became mr piers burden to tender sufficient evidence to support a rational finding that these legitimate not discriminatory reasons were fos he failed to do that as the district court correctly found primarily mr pierre relied on a alleged comment that mr kim actually it's not that they were false they were pretext they could be perfectly true but not the reasons for that decision thank you your honor i stand corrected  said mr pierre primarily relied on a comment allegedly made nearly a year before which mr came  that they needed to get rid of the black guy because he was making too much money now the fact that that whether the statement was made is in dispute is not material and it's not material for a number of reasons st it is undeniable that mr pierre was never dismissed his salary was never reduce to my knowledge he of this personal here and that because of that characteristic they didn't want to do things core which could be evidence that they didn't want to do something for him when it came to a promotion that's the argument that's the argument your honor but even if you credit that argument it is still too remote in we assume it was made it was made by someone who was involved in the promotion decision it was one of the and one of the decisions one of the decisions your honor one of the decisions however there's now evidence that in that one decision that mr kim discussed mr pearce credential discussed the recommendation or his involvement in the interview process plaintiffs fail to tender any evidence to suggest that cam became any deeply involved in any way in that decision but the context of the remark is most revealing because it does not meet his burden to show that discrimination was the real reason for choosing other better qualified candidates and about the city claim i mean we've you know we've struggled on over the years w federal claim isn't good more appropriate to let's say cases or city cases be decided in city and state courts i mean why should federal courts be deciding matters of of evidence and while that is a matter of state law of city law then the degree of causation which is one of the major differences between state and city law is one of the things that you were pointing to because you say the distance a year was too great well a year maybe too great under the standard of causation for reminding me of that i mean it was not an argument that they raised in their main brief but to the extent that the court is concerned about it the district court and this court routinely applies t he city law in these cases and does so very thoroughly and very well and very capably and then just a quick witted that here and there's no reason to be concerned that that claim w not remain ended to state court court has no further questions of me i am happy to rely on my different argument your argument on the merits you do make but that's a different question you argued that this record should have been cited for you on state law and you know you don't want a perfectly good argument