r showing that the continuing violation doctoring is applicable to this case but the court feel to apply the same up that for applying the the screen act test  so nd we want to talk about a few cases that were cited by the district court with complete disregard of the difference between the facts of this case and the facts of those cases those cases cited by by th quarter i'm a little confused i think you need to distinguish between those the acts which have no statute of limitations or limitation period on the one hand and then what those acts are who are the three hundred day period that you are concerned about thousand and fifteen the company the police ishu a new handbook applicable to sales persons and in such handbook they limited the levy of sales persons that the not have an assigned sales territory and i speak limited the ability of them to actively accounts client accounts that had been inactive for dormant for example of a client purchase products this is these are companies that sell maintenance and cleaning products even a company purchase products for the following six months and they don't need to purchase any more products for six months the county executive would lose the account and he would become inactive and this new policy establishing mar st two thousand and fifteen prevent that the account amount of years from reactivating accounts so that means they could no longer they can no longer get new clients ne customers they cannot react to an account and because the previous year they had not been assigned the appellant had not been assigned a territory a sense territory he was left out he could not he could no did not and so since the question was what would the admiral one man hutchings i i wonder how lack can be classified as an adverse employment action based on age territory's they have signed ten of them and left seven make and because they wanted to hire younger people and there is abundant evidence on the record of all the discriminatory acts that occurred in the last three to four years and he was a pattern and policy and this was the last act even though on its face clearly it doesn't say that it applies to older people wrote the younger people but it was a pattern and practice of policy which is what the case look particularly counsel you are trying to advocate and i looked at the record as well as judge sell you there is no pattern or a practice claim asserted a complaint you did not make that claim to the district court no are in your st brief to us did you assert such a claim your opponent said if it was your intention to have asserted such a claim you have waved at because it wasn't presented and wasn't argued in your st sprit it is the only and you reply brief that for the st time the federal courts hear that you are now in your reply brief recap saying your claims as a pattern or excused for never having asserted such a claim you did assert a disparate impact claim and bad claim was in fact so and i do think your time and stop but i will give you another minute do you want to solve mop yes so we understand that the you know you attorney paul if you could get your audio and video an attorney rex satch if you could present eleven and before two thousand and fourteen and finally some issues relating to it changes to a holiday pay policy two thousand and thirteen those were the basically the four claims that were dismissed by the his argument and the discrete act test or the direct evidence continuing violation test and that simply does not jive with the supreme court holding the case of national passenger corp versus more again regarding discreet acts i mean it seems that plaintiffs continues to try to use the wording of a plan or a were discreet acts they are clearly discrete acts under the holding of morgan and plaintiff cannot simply use a different label to get around it counsel the counsel let me look look see if we can move all those four events there are this there discriminatory effect was evidence to the point that at that time that is the focus of the supreme court decision and morgan which basically this court recognized in crowl doctrine you know right that the plaintiff has not made out a continuing violation case because they were clear discrete acts and the facts of them were evident to him at that time and so he should have acted on them when they occurred and he cannot string them together that is your argument that is correct and he cannot then use subsequent acts which occurred within the statutory leah stated was that there was no relationship to age because those changes to the two thousand and fifteen hot looking apply to everybody and the distinctions that they made as to the ability to open reactivate accounts related to them being a history holders or not not it was not a distinction based on age and in fact well plaintive continues to a state that there were a it was based on whether they had the employee had or did not have any territory and that's not a protected category so there's no evidence to suggest that it was at all any kind of substitute for for age the other claim is the constructive discharge claim and the district court focused on the fact that plaintiff had not carried his burden of proving circumstances so egregious that i would not if they would not have given him an opportun alternative to to terminate to simply resigning so those are the only two claims that were not time barred and they were and they were dismissed appropriately by the court if i may briefly address plaintiff's contentions regarding direct evidence and i think again there is a misunderstanding of what that means as asper the reflect the elements animals and bear squarely on the contested employment decision however when you look at his brief he at page twenty seven let is a number of constructive terminations it's lacking plaintive merely made reference to some comments paid by supervisors that they complained a lot that he cried too much or that people in puerto rico complain too much they wish no relationship to either the two thousand and fifteen handbook or to the other to the termination that would suggest that those two comments when related to those action this case the court held the plaintive male cane recovery for this criminal to react that otherwise would be time barred so long as a related act one related act fell within the limitations period when we look at was younger sales representatives were given books of clients and customers of prospective clients and the older people with without an assigned cell stereo were not given those books there were more benefits for  meant specifically told me he did not want to hire anybody over forty years old for selves because if you have not accomplished something by the age of forty you are not going to accomplish anything in the future and then his son stepped over in the company said and there is evidence presented to the district court saying explicitly that says specifically said that he did not want to hire anyone above forty four hours for sales herself all the evidence presented the police gave honorable united states court of appeals is now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting