thank you may it please the court the issue that both of these cases present is whether there is sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on the issue of retaliatory intent and in particular in this case whether there is enough evidence to establish for the jury to find that the employer's reasons for terminating both of these employees was pretextual and i want to state at the outset your honour's that summary judgment is just not appropriate in a case like this very you have not only evidence that the timing of the terminations in both cases was suspicious but when you take that and you look at the things that were said to the employees before they were terminated the things that were said afterwards and then the  her help in doing that she then goes on a short vacation appears to come back some time probably after the thanksgiving holidays and learns that there have been put in place two new program directors without her  radio station she gave him a background of what had happened because of the words that she uses in her testimony she told him how she had been discriminated on the basis of because she was a woman in the past and she told him you know my pay is still much the same as party about it at that time and she has a pretty good relationship with her cardie up to that point they're friendly with each other there's some evidence there was some jealousy he had some minor complaints about she played the music too loud and that sort of thing but after she take the stand of discrimination he hates her it's the testimony after that time and it's because she made complaints of discrimination and because she walked out and took that stance there's testimony from an independent witness tammy peterson anger towards her persis did all the way up through the november of ninety nine when american media took over and then he was in a position to do something about how he felt just within a couple of months before to say well look it's people all were gone from the company and so that shows we were changing things but if you look at the people they quite still they weren't gone they point to and the enduring mitchell who was an announcer he didn't leave the company now then before the unemployment hearing they didn't just say you know no we're not giving evidence they actually said nothing they did cause their dismissal and they had the opportunity at that point to say whether there was any misconduct and certainly my experience is that employers rushed right down the list everything they can think of to try to win as unemployment hearings that didn't happen in this case then after the litigation starts and this is really the crux of our pretext argument your honor is that they came up with a list of reasons why they said they fired her and if i will go through them there is evidence refuting that they are just not true or at least the jury should be able to weigh whether that nothing she could do to improve her job when he took over and he didn't want that attitude that never happened there's evidence in the record that that never happened and if none of these things happened and they're coming in accordance they will require her because of a bad attitude but the incident they're relying on didn't happen surely the jury should be able to weigh the evidence not the court but the jury to weigh whether that in fact was the real reason and you couple that with the exaggeration of the plan any changes and i think these present questions of fact fact and i want to go first to the issue it seems to have done in the first portion of this as to whether or not people were fired and whether or not there's been some kind of misrepresentation by marathon about what happened with various people's employment around but when you turn on that radio station tale argy that these plaintiffs work for the voices of what's coming out of that radio on every shift within two months of american having taken over were completely different than the voices that were coming out of that radio stated that radio prior to the purchased five marathon so there was a complete change of what this radio seemed to be like everybody on it was different and then also  twelve in a row format they did at big kickoff where they played george strait music for an entire weekend and they were trying to kind of turn it around and indeed the record there is not the fact that they were really trying to make th their own station they got an entirely new warning shell and a few months later they concluded that morning show wasn't working either and they completely replaced those people again there were clearly big changes going on and i don't think there's ever been  show on a daily basis he continued to do part time voice tracking for another radio station in the in the cluster at an early rate of seven dollars and fifty cents but he was only working ten hours a week of eventual that morning show with a male female team reasons for his terminations decision here the reason was we were changing this radio station and plaintiff has never argued that the employer failed to meet its burden of setting forth these mom retaliatory reasons at that presumptive evidence of retaliation out there f that point the question then for tom just has either of these plaintiffs shown that marathons explanation we were making changes and we saw nothing the most articulate on this point and also then i circuit has recognized that there can be hybrid situations where you have both circumstantial and direct evidence this is not one of those situations this case involve circumstantial evidence and under god lend to prove pretext to prove that the employers explanation is is artificial you have to show evidence that  is not worthy of being believed and end and that evidence simply is mind here that the court's decisions have made clear that minor factual discrepancies are not sufficient to avoid summary judgment and for example in the goblin case the court did find that there was evidence of pretext and that was a case where a woman claimed that her employer had failed to promote her and h woman had applied for was inconsistent in material ways with the statements upon which the employer relied and for example the employer said that the most critical criteria for the person it was hard for the job in that case was the so any things were going completely in opposite directions from what the employer was saying and and most importantly there was evidence in godwin that the employer actually viewed the plaintiffs in as having these traits that record there is no shortage of evidence showing that marathon's management team are not fans of these plaintiffs prior to any complaint for example with ms croom directors from her because they thought she had more work quality and is floppy work voice tracking is where you read the record our radio show in advance and then it's off computerized to display like a line of someone saying this that there's kind of little places at the margins where it where it's possible to get really excited about some difference and the facts as viewed by marathon in the past few by plaintiffs but the the honored your honor i would like to emphasize that i respectfully disagree that the issue here is limited to whether the wholesale changes constitute a pretext i think when an employer gives a number of reasons for terminating an employee you have to look at all of those reasons to see if there through these these employer came in and said it first these people these two women didn't do anything wrong there was no reason no cause on their heart for their dismissal then when the litigation started in the  godwin case the court was very clear you've got to be suspicious of reasons that come up after the litigation started and these are not minor factual discrepancies this counsel would would suggest where there's just a glimmer of hope that there might be a di about her she didn't go in there five times and yet there's evidence she didn't go in there he says she did and that's the reason he fired or a jury should be able to resolve whether the the employer is telling the truth there is a whole list of reasons of events that went on like that that the employer came up with in their depositions i don't think those can be sidelined as some why not actual discrepancies those were the heart of the of the reasons they gave them if they're not true or there's evidence or not true it's really for the jury to weigh that