fact i'd like to call it didn't hurt ruby who still maintain more than one sort of negative statement about getting up though to get work done in an eight hour day that sort of thing are those also in the performance review this computer experts all in one sentence concluding that every one of these concurs either was terminated or didn't have the same position as of speech but that's just simply wrong none of the comparatives were terminated for the reasons that we stepped forth in the court so the particular errors at that point in time or the particular negative review score at that point in time they might have been terminated or resigned years of that future before saying that if you look at the conduct not involve any nuanced legal theories and it doesn't involve a battle of conflicting case law rather if you apply the evidence to the elements of each claim just like the district court d and there is one specific thing that makes this case unique and it's this chilling that he admitted that she made errors and she had performance issues before her action plan during her she was required to improve her performance sustain that performance or face determination when she's had some improvement during the time of the action plan she was allowed to complete that action plan even though there were errors during that time but she continued to have errors in her work after the action plan was completed and at that point she was terminated she was given some additional time to find a job as a sign of good faith from us thanks she was an able to do presents many evidence to this court to reverse this decision none of those evidence are compelling and none of those are supported by the record evidence and as i listen to the arguments  my opposing counsel i really ask the court to look at the record especially to look carefully at ms mckee his performance and her own testimony because there is so much testimony that talks about all  border element required ms mckee to show that she had some additional evidence that age was a factor in her terminations and she did not do that and that's why this case can be dismissed without even getting to her arguments and this was not her place when she was terminated contrary to what my opposing counsel said in his introduction that she was replaced by a twenty seven year old employee that is nowhere in the same manager that that was involved in the decision t undisputed evidence is that there was no job posting from is making his position following her terminations there was no requisition there was no interview process for her position and there is zero evidence or testimony that someone filled her an important factor or that can be considered i believe in the briefing claim to indicate that there was no case to support that position and they'd like to give you a couple cases right now that do support that proposition  the plate it also was meeting reasonable expectations at the time is terminations there was absolutely no lead up to that lateness germination like julie mickey where she was placed on an action plan following month new to the team so i'm back to my argument just small and it girl different level of experience he did have a different title which is security specialist one he did have that significant error he was immediately placed on an action plan just as ms mckee was it completed that action plan and however had further issues can terminate it and so he was treated the same as julie working with the technology u s bank never treated terrorist action she did all of the training she requested the additional training and they provided it so that she could use the systems and she testified that she was it does seem odd and i know this isn't necessarily the standard but she was an employee for forty one years she was it seems odd that all of a sudden you know presumably she was making mistakes all all and then all of a sudden after forty one years that's a long autumn and the record that she gets terminated it is a long record and what i'll tell you your honor is evidence that the house she performed before two thousand and mickey had other air action plans that any other errors and you can be terminated but she didn't do that she wanted to get in this mickey another chance and she did give them as nikki another chance when she did get that extra t l c then there sighted by us think has to do with this new swift computer system that was put in place in two thousand and fourteen and the idea is she couldn't catch on the computer system fine but the fact is and the record shows that mi the legitimate expectations of its employer that's critical the key piece of that evidence that the user could help prove that mr right out was meeting those expectations was his forty year history and his favorable