that he complained during that time to the vice president or about the vice president of human resources because he thought that he and others in the bank were being discriminatory and then at ten trial the bank found in hindsight through nit picking a total of eight specific instances where they thought his work was hurt all of those instances were discussed during the discharging officials deposition and he acknowledged that none of them were known to him at the time he discharged mr pretty on top so what the jury heard was that mr pretty on top wasn't good enough to have thirds of the way through this training program and then through the long hours of depositions and testimony and many witnesses we heard  the factual underpinnings of example after example after example of details of less than perfect work that the bank knew nothing about and the problem with that is this jury was not queried on whether motivation or a tele action played a part in the discharge but it did get to hear details in hindsight that would make anyone think that this is not a good employee you can take the best employee with a perfect record and it's important to focus on mr pretty on public record as he went through each step of the training program he gotten good reviews he had a written motion before trial and they were objected to at the time of trial as each element was brought up and there was more dear of mr rodriguez the discriminating official before he was allowed to tell the and all of the testimony was after acquired evidence the only thing mr rodriguez would provide in his deposition after the bank's detailed search of his records after complaining to the seat oh mr tom scott about the discrimination coming from the vice president of human resources so he complained about the human resources head discriminating against him and then the time it's not all i guess i'm struggling with your statement earlier that the only thing the jury ever heard was stuff they figured out after he was let go but i thought they also heard about all the things that led up to having correct and the concern that i had before trial and making a motion in limine to exclude the after acquired evidence how does the dirt very distinguished that in their mind from the majority of the evidence which was the kinds of things like personality conflicts that happen on a day to day basis but are unknown to management and for no part of management's decision the jury had no way of differentiating the laundry list of what is considered bad conduct through hindsight with the day to day attitude of the bank towards mr pretty on top again he had i think it was five performance evaluations and every one of them was good  our customers and so on so we're all us also in the past the performance reviews were not only positive in that they didn't just say perfect employee they would say good employee but needs to focus on and i think that's what you was getting a credit card on her husband's account the wife but no permission from husband and a lady and a man who tried to change her found one of their social security put into their new account he told me didn't have to do that  transactions we couldn't get it to trainers coworkers not you know not management people explaining to the jury we've spent all this time with him and he can't get it he's not ready to be until the manager is over him the problems these people are having why they're saying he's not ready after training for sixteen weeks of hell they put him into they say well let's let's give a break in that it's not getting there let's put him into collection so they put him in at the court directed a verdict on the ace discrimination case this is no evidence that there would been anyone replacing the plaintiff that was young no evidence one of the basic facts nor peel on that issue the court did agreed i mean there's no there's nothing that happened here that was any abuse of discretion the only thing that occurred is that the court gave the plaintiff every opportunity in a case that probably never should have been tried  instances which the council and jury heard by descriptions like the credit card social security transaction that instance with mr not afraid eight different ones i put in the brief every one of those whole transcript the rulings were done in writing the bank made this argument about the transcript to the court asking under the rules when we said this is the portion of the transcript we're going to or records of who they employed the bank the fifteen hundred eighty five employees that shows that they don't have a practice hire native americans he happened to have an occasion to meet with the c e o and the c e o overstepped his bounds and offered him a job and then he was under the guise of richard rodriguez ha ha jones and those two people that do the hiring normally are the ones that were discriminated and they acknowledge especially job bob jones comment that it was not what you would expect of h r person might be considered reality or discrimination if in you the question is the eight out of ten marks that he got on those reviews they really support the banks story or did they bring up all of these other eight instances only ones they were able to find in this ten months there eight specific instances to try to cover up the retaliate and we won't know because the jury only was  did they discriminate retaliate and should have been asked did they if you think they fired for legitimate reasons was discrimination at college and also a motivating factor