reassignment based claims of discrimination gender discrimination under title seven and age discrimination under the age discrimination in employment act that decision of the district court was correct and should be affirmed because  d a presented substantial evidence of its legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for the reassignment at issue and this record failed to create a tribal issue a fact as to whether u s d a is explanation was merely pretext for age and gender on the pretext issue with respect to pretexts u s d a offered ample evidence that miss wright was reassigned as part of a budget based reorganization of an entire national forest this is the green  national forest located in central vermont she had been employed there since two thousand and one and this reorganization was developed and implemented over the course of several years culminating in her reassignment in two thousand and fourteen  the record reflects that the reorganization was developed after much work force analysis and budget analysis the record is full of force leadership team meetings to this effect there's no evidence that there was a greater impact on women that's true your honor yes there was and how do you respond to that how do you deal with that well if if you look at the basis for the actual employment actions at issue i think it shows that the actions were gender neutral and age neutral the wall the entire forest was was affected by the reorganization and there were many changes across the various different staff areas of the forest it's true that the employees that were displaced in other words resigned the vast majority of them were in what was called the public services staff area and a civil rights impact analysis that included in the record showed that that staff area was eighty percent female  moreover if you look at the positions that issue there isn't really a comparative analysis that lends itself to thinking that there was a bias here and unlawful bias for example miss record held the position of forest plan or there was only one forest plan or position on the forest and so it's not as though there was a a male colleague or a colleague under the age of forty who held that same position and retain the job so u s d a offered  i think ample evidence that this reorganization went into effect after much analysis and ultimately eleven positions were eliminated from the forest organization including that forest forest planner position that i just alluded to mr record doesn't dispute that she was reassigned as part of this large scale reorganization nor did she dispute that there were ten other positions that were eliminated as i understand it the crux of her argument is that there was no budgetary justification workforce analysis that supported the reorganization that argument simply is not supported by the record and in fact i think the budget argument in particular as it's raised in her brief and her reply brief is somewhat of a red reichert would focus the court's attention on the overall force and i believe she says that the overall force budget remained relatively stable in the years leading up to this reorganization but if you look at the very spreadsheet budget spreadsheet that on which mr allies in fact she was the st to submit it as an attachment to her underlying grievance before this litigation was even commenced that's pretty clearly shows that the budget line item that funds for its planning and in particular the forest plan or salary decreased dramatically in the years leading up to the reorganization from two thousand and eight to two thousand and twelve that budget it looks like it decreased by sixty percent i believe in our brief we based on a math error said more than forty percent if you look at the numbers it's actually sixty percent miss record doesn't dispute that when she references this point in her brief she simply finds clever wording to suggest that the overall budget remained the same and that a secondary line item was not the primary source of funding i'd i'd also say that her suggestion that the budget was not an issue is belied by her own remarks there are a number of pieces of evidence in the record in which miss record herself acknowledges the budget issue i think one of the most interesting pieces of evidence is a report recommendation a piece of work force analysis and the other members of what was referred to as the new planning team or sub organisation in december two thousand and eleven they submitted a report to the force leadership team in which they essentially acknowledged that beginning in two thousand and twelve that subgroup of the forest would begin operating in a budget deficit and that budget deficit would increase over the next several years and yet when recommending to the forest what the staffing should be they still recommended a particular staffing that would not match with that forced budget i see that i'm close on time so i'll sum up by pointing the court's attention to one other damning piece of evidence in fact that i find it the most salient piece of evidence in the case  in may two thousand and eleven the forest leadership team and in particular the four supervisor who is that the head of this particular forest her executive assistant reached out  said as you know we have serious concerns about the budget we'd like your feedback about creative solutions we're going to be discussing this during forest leadership team meetings responded to the executive assistant with the c c to the fo supervisor and they set intially recommended expressly in that e mail the very consolidation of positions on which she now sues she recommended that the forest plan or position could be consolidated with what's called the position that used what unfolded that's why we're here in court today and yet she claims there was no justification for that issue i i think that that's completely belied by the record she also acknowledged at her deposition that that is the very this is the very manner in which the green mountain national forest was organized prior to her hire and she also acknowledged in that e mail and that deposition that this is the way in which a number of other national forests are organized seems to me that it certainly is a rational basis upon which to eliminate the forest plan or position and that's why the u s d a did so unless the court has any questions all rest on my brief thank you