the question in this case is not whether american had a right to expect different kind from and it's not whether the employer has the right to terminate the question  behavior that an employer has a right to expect can constitute in other words stand in for the rule that holding contravenes the unambiguous meaning of rule or policy deliberate choice to violate the language in section six o two a required that the employee actually be aware that she is violating a specific rule or policy yes your honor it does in the language will as a much less workable predictable and fair standard than what the legislature wanted when it defined because common sense varies widely from workplace to workplace and this is the perfect to be given out on an informal basis maybe that has changed over time the common sense does change and it's so variable and subjective that it ends up disqualifying people like  and i'm not suggesting there is a just want to know that there is not a known a reasonable rule characterize his testimony and the issue of the rule provide evidence of rules that prohibit that said you know oh upgrades have to go through so ok let me let me follow up with this question if i understand the facts facts correctly petrovac asked one of the flight my question clearly i think it is clear i don't so what's the answer is there evidence that the question is is there evidence that the flight attendant authorized the accommodation no there's no there's testified that i asked this question and i got off the plane and i didn't know what was going to happen whether the everybody happen or not come he says oh come this testimony is incompetent because he says he's getting his information under the defendant's reading no matter how incompetent how devoid of competent there are you as a protest claim his and i talked about the referee would have been required to consider it as competent evidence but as we've seen actually gave her a letter and said here's what she did and here are the rules that but if i and the rules sixteen and i think was twenty three or thirty four thirty four start said you know prohibit misrepresentation and dishonesty so in other words the employer said to mr punch a big here's why we're firing you because we think you did something dishonest when you ask these question there wasn't any charge because the employer provided no evidence that the passenger actually  haven't concluded anything by this question but if the violation the rule is placing the passenger in the seat and providing the champagne how did this woman violate the rule and in making those two things happen that's why i'm trying to understand i think that's sort of a narrow cut price question does that reflect that did she have authority to leave her position you say she was in the tower well how did that happen right there was evidence that she she was that was improper that was in the players probably was one of the things th rule that employer might have even though it wasn't written down but it is it is that's literally in willfully violated that there was no way for the some players have known about  does not participate in the hearings so to say that first of all that there's a burden on the lawyer goes against the whole structure of the statute on the statute talks of eligibility and talks of the board considering all the evidence in the record regardless of what party segments it and regardless of any further either party so the board is looking out whether that person is eligible under the law or ineligible not whether the employer submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy some b the investigation that was performed by the employer which was done by human resources agency along with a statement that was submitted by patrick herself so it's not just you know we're protesting files it also comes along with documents that are submitted by the employer and under the act regulations those documents can be considered by the board the fact that they were not brought up at the hearing you know is not  before the agency and she could have raised objections to those documents if she had wanted to and again the federal regulations and laws that govern some of this make very clear that these proceedings are supposed to be  fission and some of their twenty minute thirty minute telephone hearings where a referee takes questions to determine eligibility this is not a you know a three day full month trial where the last  unturned and every question is asked this is just to get enough information to determine whether the person's health benefits and the purpose of those you know simple quick efficient process to get that person the benefits if they're eligible as speaking of regulations most important pages thirty seven and thirty eight of your brief you discussed the administrative code and regulations dealing with harm and whether it could be potential was that an issue during the hearings was the regulation speculative because it's not based on any evidence in the record and that's fair but here we have now a way evidence of actual harm but actual evidence of potential harm that her actions cause so this is you know not a case where potential harm is sufficient that interpretation of the statute is beyond standing is not unreasonable so there's no reason for this court to determine on this case the potential harm is in question and under under that regulation responsibilities no longer had anything to do with customer service she was working in the tower and that she will play until whatley violated this rule all of which she was aware because she had learned about your p c training she went to lower level employees  away and it really illustrates why rule makes sense by the legislature was wise to require and that is that a rule has words and when an employer says to the board them and asked if that was all the champagne did end up at the plate but under under nobody's version of events did mr petrovich handle the employer mentioned something like she went hearsay i want to talk about the kind of circumstantial evidence isn't there there isn't circumstantial evidence that champagne it under the employer's own account it was that it was she have the status of someone in authority that another person who she called with think that she had authority to suggest that she was not means and there's no evidence that she made any them here while and his dependence they say was she should have objected they're the ones who are really counting on technical ability and having warriors in these hearings but if you look at all the there comey said when when the hearing examiner said i mean how do you know that this happened he says i'm looking at a passenger sir let's see what does this report say that report is not in the record so we don't even i investigated this was said to me or i found so that would have been here say but at least it would have been double hearsay but he doesn't even say that he says i'm looking at this report that passenger services filed we don't the cockpit and went back to talk with passengers on the copilot was asleep and they're going through a storm and the autopilot takes care of it is that not a potential harm this morning you're excused at this time marshall