relatively simple we'd think that in this age discrimination case the district court erred just suggesting that the plaintiffs did not make a promise face to face because the difference three younger persons one fourteen years younger than street and the other six years younger than she let's assume for just a second think you are correct that a prim discrimination was established then we have the situation where griffin articulated at least a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his actions so what what was the showing that your side was that there was no logical basis for mr griffin says actually the fact the reason that he came up with were developed later on in fact the reasons he gave positions and instead younger women were placed into those positions and no valid reason was given for that other than the fact that mr griffin said he wanted to select them for wait evidence considered credibility of the information that was presented and decided conflicting evidence against this place if we think that these their worst substantial issues here involved it should have been tried by a jury and c had demanded a jury trial we think the court should not have undertaken on its own to make these determinations in other words of what really were mr griffin says reasons for taking these actions because the reasons he gave were volatile of the law on the regulations that i think you're referring to don't apply to robinson because her acting manager position was only temporary and i'm wrong about temporary persistence plus substantial periods of time she was making more money in that position and she was being groomed far a higher position so she was entitled to the protection of those rules and you don't she wasn't available to work why she at that time she returned a week before the woman was placed in a position she was back at work how long was she out apparently just a spent rest of his thought period of time and the line supervisor job the second position was the position that ms gray was placed in was the acting manager's job for the first floor that position as we pointed out in our brief she actually never held she in fact did not request and she legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that was testified to by mr griffin was first that he wanted to let other people develop magical skills so he could have them available to serve in temporary capacity when the need  arises he also wanted to give them a chance to compete eventually for a promotion when vacancies opened during the time period issue in this case there were no vacancies will temporary assignments the other side tells us that what was done was in violation of rules and that this does not apply to this assignment for example this does apply it applies to the simon fights terms to any of these people temporarily however all that that sets that  service violated that provision is to jump to the ultimate conclusion that point it has to reach in this case that this was a discrimination there's no evidence independent of the allegations raised by the plaintiff that  this provision was violated there's also no evidence that mr griffin came up with these explanations after the fact it's i believe the source of of the testimony plaintiff presented to defeat summary judgment is her testimony that mr griffin decision was made after she informed him that she was going to be retiring in july of two nder those circumstances he had a legitimate business reason to prepare for her ultimate departure and the impact that would have on operations  e there's no evidence that mr griffin this decision was based on some inaccurate stereotype that he had for older workers in fact he testified that ms robinson did an excellent job as manager the only evidence is that his decision was made after the appellant climbed in that she was going to leave we smith of this is no different than that she said she was going to take another job or move to another state he had to prepare for that to lose was preparing other people to take over he did not say that i didn't receive that either he didn't say that what he said was he wanted to have other people prepared to act in an affectation if the need arises as in fact it did so that i would submit they're not  fellow but there's no indication that she didn't have an opportunity to present her case she was asked very plainly are deposition why she thinks that these decisions were made based on her age and she presented evidence in response to that question or seventy for the questions  stroller well we've heard the police argument always stand is that let a jury decide what the defendant's motivations really were she was in that position she was in fact in that position of perform admirably so why would you remove her from that position and put two younger women into that position also as a matter of fact she was been paid as a brave twenty four really in that position and she was committed this time