called cation but in any event the basis for saying that he was not qualified was that he had not been in the position for ready that he was in for more than a year e those cases but also say that the record shows that their own documents say why somebody wasn't interviewed or promoted and what they said here was that  be pretty important but under broadest versus ok industry when you're suing the entity itself all you have to do is establish corporate knowledge of activity or conduct i don't think that we have to do that the other thing is that we can prove cases through manes other than direct evidence you can use circumstantial evidence to prove cases and you know the reality is d is that is that they you know my people you know in in he at least evidence of five different individuals who are either caucasian or asian who would not follow the c chargers who didn't get disqualified for this reason and you know that so it's reason is they say well you know the cops program he got promoted mr gibson got promoted through the cops program and and he did not  get and the cops program doesn't let you get promoted twice in one year and the problem with that is that requirement is something that's imported from company y policy that applies to all employees all positions if you  question because it didn't stop it with other people you know the other thing is that my client has a deuced evidence and i know that they say this you know little is a decision maker to do status of a team leader said you're not getting promoted managers meetings about subordinates like him and so his status was well known in the company and it could mean if well known by charge because h r are the d ones who would be dealing with things like  jobs you know another issue is that you know when he st heard this explanation you're not in the position for for a full twelve months and that's why you didn't get promoted he knew that was wrong because he knew if you got bad character which is quite something to say to people and so it's a shifting legitimate nondiscriminatory reason it's the sort of circumstantial evidence no bachelor's degree no master's degree whereas my client had effectively been doing the team lee job for two or three years and so he was wondering why is this guy get it and i'm not so when asked and that's easy is told why you are in the position for more than one year and you that was wrong because he knew about these other five individuals who had not been stopped from promotion by virtue of that twice in one year old or supposed t in one year old so that's when he went to mr simeon ask what's up why don't i get this promotion and that's what he's told you're big here intimidating you've got bad character and so that's a shifting legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and that's as to their st reason which is the twelve months and we didn't forger application because of that twelve months you know the other problem with you know further evidence of intent  pretext is that aside if you look at their own paid for this is not his testimony he's not saying i mean he does deny that he was big intimidating and a bad character but their own analysis of mr gibson is not that he's big and intimidating and bad character if you look at their documents if you look at their documents their indicate that he's a model employee that he is getting good evaluations and that he's getting good evaluations on interpersonal skills which is completely inconsistent with  from other people well you know were in the south one of the most common stereotypes that people recognize as being flawed african american man is that they're big  intent and it's direct evidence of it to it and you can tell that it's stereotyping in this case because aside from the conduct context of being in the south and have been some of the most stereotypical police she would have about african american american males you know  like i said their position has been that we didn't d forward is his application to anybody so it didn't get considered he didn't get interviewed because i jar made this this this call that you know  he's not able d to apply because he's not been in this current position for ten months but like i said we're allowed to prove they sift through circumstantial evidence we do not have to prove cases through direct evidence you know i mean just like they're not going to sit there and say yeah we're not promoting you because you're black that's why we're not promoting you because not a yossi charge you really should facility where it completes the jet aircraft and finishes it out and delivers it to the customer it approximately has sixteen to one thousand seven hundred employees at this facility in the department in question that mr gibson worked the manufacturing engineering department that department worked with computer programs and would create deliver those programs to various production teams on how to assemble the jet in two thousand and fifteen there were two times the promotions and  for team leader positions as the record indicates in the abend exist the other type of promotion is what was called career path promotion and this distinction again is discuss performance those career panting promotions that mr gillum and his client point to not of those were team in leader decisions and none of those were posted decisions in so all of those promotions and he says well these white male employees are being promoted are not sanal are right and also your are with regard to the failure to promote claim the evidence my show that a similarly situated white employee was promoted to establish a prime if they should case in this case mr smith the employee that was promoted was lap and so mr gi and mr cindy and both fridge origin and they never had an opportunity to consider mr gibson's application because it was not on their debts h r had determined based upon their rule that you had to be in your two nd home to go there's been some comment made about the box that said that you were all fired wasn't checked were the other persons who are not accepted because they failed to meet qualifications was that box checked on their applications or on their notices your honor i believe in the record that those those the box may not have checked but there was a written notation and not not in the position for twelve months in again he was not eligible because not in the position for twelve months old the notices were identical in the in the personal records with we would say that ye that the process was identical and that in the know that the applications with regard to whether or not they were eligible was identical because the age or made that decision to go through the applications in determin who to forward who was qualified whom and who made met the essential eligibility for those efficacious the before and only three of the seven were forwarded to michigan thank you thank you your honor with regard to the stray comment of mr sammy and saying that mr gibson was big and intimidating but again judge logan correctly noted this meeting occurred after the decision to promote mr smith and already been made this was a decision where mr gibson came to meet with mr going calmly as and mr sandman and that's noted in the a seventy two and also in my brief at age nine and this was more of a coaching session of how he could better himself to maybe in the future compete for a team leader position it was not a shifting reason for why he was not selected this time made by dennis mitchell where where he allegedly said it and will accept it as true as we must on this record that that the reason that you were not selected for team leader was that wasn't said it was because of what happened with laurie bradley and what happened with laurie bradley was begun to get an argument with a supervisor in two thousand and eleven so that evidence is not directed evidence nor do we say circumstantial evidence to establish but for causation further mr mitchell was not and supervisor he was a team leader or a coworker as judge baker correctly found and mr gi ignores the fact that there's four years between his ego see charge and this decision to promote and that link of time in between then he received one promotion in two thousand and fourteen and he where the regard to the reduction in force mr geffen has to point to some criteria that race was a factor in this election of being laid off and there is no such evidence  mister gift that wants to point to other employees that were treated differently but if we look at the other employees who were team leader mr gibson was laid off with a nother white employee both of which who are the smith was also allowed to be demoted the asked to be demoted and if employees who want to apply for lower level positions could do that and so mr gibson acknowledges that mr smith who received the reap promotion tw fifteen also of a black male was allowed to be demoted in two thousand and seventeen there is no evidence that mr gibson was selected because of his race or that he was not allowed to apply for any lower position because of apologize so anyway the court's summary judgment decision said that gets us testified that he did not know the criteria used to determine who would be laid off and the are risk gibson is speculating that seniority about skill set as a senior manufacturing engineer he had a low seniority in relation to other senior manufacturing chain so but nd he was told this by the director so it was at a best he did offer evidence but in any event what the court then ignores is that it's gibson provided testimony that a less senior caucasian senior manufacturing engineer  charge was not terminated he was less senior with company it was less senior in his position at sea as a senior made a factory engineer my client had been at it since january two thousand and fifteen that individual had been at it for only a year so my client did have greater seniority and what that means is d that ban divorce affidavit no longer explains the difference in treatment between mccaw and mr