court area when it granted summary judgment to the college and the e e o c really carefully laid out considerations for why it should be used to analyze reasonable factor s however the facts in the record show that for the first year under this new act of the college utilized one of its h r employees craig aren't and he was able to easily and readily identify the earnings limitations for each of the new events and he was able to easily monitor the compliance under the law it wasn't until two thousand and thirteen that the college delegated the monitoring to a second employee mislead solving who didn't understand that this act and basically ignored it all together so you have a situation where the college wasn't monitoring its obligation monitor and then there's a second problem with that complying ms was all these failure to monitor the earnings limitations at all the way that the return to work law works is that during one year and a new it would become affected and then the penalty only kicks in in the following year but the college in this case never tried to determine whether or not people had become affected during one year and recently and here it's the administrative hassle implementing these new rules we don't tests that for matters of degree or whether the employer was actually of the sample i disagree with there it's not like the title scientific i understand and i understand that there are cases that talk about that it's a relatively low burden but it is still a bird right and th doesn't really matter it's clear and it's undisputed that there are new rules and these rules require some administrative changes in order to implement them and correctly enough to establish that this is burdensome at least to the minimal degree necessary to establish the affirmative defense but the way that you're articulating that that's really got sort of a rational basis type of test and we understand we're not just imagining rational bases there is you know there's there is evidence in the record to establish what it takes to comply with the new rules and that's all  well but when we're looking at the burden under the oracle way defense there's a couple things that talk about exactly what hurdle the employer asks to meet right and so we know it has to be higher than a simple rational basis account to the for the and we can see that are employed and to keep track of their hours there's no dispute about that right the dispute is whether or not that is burdensome and whether it's reasonable to terminate all of the employees that might require some amount of monitoring that's now their test the question is whether there's a reasonable basis other than right but we know that the college already has to monitor all of these things for other reasons so the issue is whether or not it's burdensome on the college to monitor for this purpose when it's already monitoring for all sorts of other purposes including the affordable care act where it would have to monitor those things and so the issue here is that the college wasn't doing that it wasn't even meeting its basic obligations to monitor their earnings why does that matter well again because the college at the end of the day has the burden of proof at summary judgment to both that it has a basis for it which is what you're talking about but it also has to persuade it has the burden of persuasion that that that is a reasonable outcome and if we look at the the factors that are cited in the regulations about how you evaluate that it's it's clear that the college cancer stablished that or that at the very least there's dis about whether or not there was an assessment of the impact on older workers whether or not there was steps to reduce the harms to other workers and in this case the college for they first of all they knew that the problem with the compliance was wholly a result of this employee failing to correctly understand that there were two laws that she had to monitor not just one they knew that there was a number of employees who could never be impacted by the return to work law at all because either their earnings their their annuities were too high or too four people who are it was anything this clearly it's eighty four faculty and staff lost their jobs i think the number of part time and adjunct faculty was this more like sixty was what sixty just those are the people that are represented by the plaintiffs and that's good but it was an across the board policy so even though there were people as i said who could never possibly be affected and the college knew they could never possibly be affected they were for this particular one was twenty five thousand dollars each you know it was based on the annuity and so in this instance where she failed to monitor i think the total penalty was something around seventy thousand dollars most which was attributable to a single individual no single person right so so i think there were two individuals with very several thousand dollars each and one mr center now asking where it was a fairly it was the bulk of the penalty and so it really was the failure to correctly monitor in this case well it's not the same question but that's a lot of faculty to lose do they hired new people that were not asked i don't think that's in the record but again there that you are right that's a lot of knowledge and that's all a lot of really arms of the college that really wasn't thought out compared to what the potential plausible reason that can be advanced by the employer but some level of scrutiny of the employer's reasons and whether or not those reasons are advancing by the action and so when we're looking at factors such as whether or not the policy is related to the business purpose the extent to which they are assessed the policy and whether or not the how that adversely affected the older gang going to be required to disk rules be employers proffered reasons but where the record contained these factual disputes about the burden of monitoring about the fact that the college was not actually monitoring or even attempt to check then they can't meet that level of scrutiny let me talk real about the claim under illinois law because i don't want to run out of time and that is something i wanted to address and i think the point that i want to make under the illinois constitution is there is some for tax and for state retirement benefits under article one section five under the well recognized exception for retaliatory charge that illinois courts of applied you can't force employers to choose between their jobs and a constitutional right in this their employment as action faculty there's no causal link here all the college specifically stated that the reason that these people were not going to be employed in the future is because they were receiving an annuity with the only constitutional right if there is such one would be the annuity that's true i mean this other job was an add on which was nice for some people and seemed to be good benefit to the the defendants because his decision to discontinue the employment of s u r s a new instance based upon concerns regarding potentially significant financial penalties as well as that incurred in addition to the expense and burden of monitoring the compensation in the form it of such individuals so that they did not become affected were re were a group of employees who are sixty five years and older who are offered a retirement incentive into entirely with them to retire at sixty five with five years of supplemental health insurance through aetna it also allowed them to turn on the part time basis to the county for employment hired county employees that worked on medicare and on the supplemental insurance for five years or later terminated by the county due to a miscalculation in the case by the county it's merely by the county of the insurance options that they could afford to these employees without violating federal law and the concern about increase insurance c the return to work law became came into effect it's really caused them great concern about the ability to do so without facing some severe financial penalties although there certainly are many a new expense there are many part time some movement toward doing that to make adjustments i do not believe it has been done so it certainly was proffered as a way for the state to to revamp its push pension system and  extent that that list can be read to suggest some form of narrow tailoring which rolled out right and i think if you read the you'll see regulation with the understanding also that that regulation was really whether in combination or singly so i think that in order for an employer to be able to still take advantage of the resale factor other than age to fit so i think their consideration but that's what they are nothing more so scrutiny it's reasonable factors other than age and that's all there is so i would argue that those are inconsistent with that so in o'brien's the employer also make clear that it does not it wasn't that simple and the record shows that if you look at all the factors that the college had to to grade together from different departments eighty different deans to make sure that every ensure that that a new attended not only received of course in that area but that they were also teaching in another area of the college in addition to these individuals could be teaching that another college for which be truly sure was to to across the board decide we're not going to hire those folks i would also argue for those folks sports argued that their new woody was less than ten thousand dollars so therefore they could they're not they're not affected by the statute that does not prevent those folks from receiving increases coal it increases every year that would still require the colors to maintain whether they did ever hit that ten thousand dollars threshold so it's better or could have done it in a more narrowly fashion way again that is not the requirement under the are of our resource sector other than age defense the court said that no jury could find this to be unreasonable they do at different institutions across the state there may be some that teach a couple classes that one to your college because another one that the other all of that goes into an examination of whether or not they  a difficult issue it is required to be monitored by both both colleges that third they would be working for if they were in the service system for example and i don't believe this is in the record which is to answer your question their teaching but again it's up to that adds up to be accurate and truthful as to whether or not they are because if there is something even in another area you are are as a student that brings them above that the penalty private colleges or other places that they may choose to do so and just to clarify when you mentioned eighteen just a moment ago you're talking about the entire community college looking back but it is a yes that's are top heavy bureaucracy yes i think i believe that some of the deans are also carry like a dual role of a teaching and a dean so there may be some of that there but they were they were appropriate and met the test under the eighty quickly with regard to the district courts a decision only only constitutional claim your honor your honor sprecher i think raise the question of it's just briefly i wanted to follow up on on three quick points the ag in question the college is discussing the fact that there are eighty deans at the college but what they fail to mention is that there's only one payroll system we're monitoring teams and there's all these departments in the top heavy bureaucracy is beside the point that it's easy just to consult the computers and look to see what the earnings are the facts show the college never did that so a lot of the difficulties that they're raising are more hypothetical than real and the record proves that they didn't actually check the record or second job sites you had mentioned this discussion ensues about the alternative