mr williamson as i was looking at page thirteen of the apple e's brief today there is reference to the application of the united states cream court decision in gross versus f t l financial services as being a pl discrimination case and the only human rights act and i'm not aware of any illinois case that has adopted the growth decision for cases under the only human rights act or age discrimination and of course the complain one for age discrimination and two for promissory estoppel and it arises out of a situation where the plaintiff was a long time employee of caterpillar inc determines on may first two thousand and eight to submit is voluntary retirement application and fills up the paperwork then in the first or second week in june of two thousand and eight i and i believe the exact it was june record i think it's references are one thirty two in the record he knew back in two thousand and two when caterpillar was opposing a facility they had a plan a process whereby they initially offered a voluntary separation agreement and after they got done with a voluntary separation agreement they proceeded to an involuntary separation situation wh such a plan and she says it's highly unlikely we're going to have such a plan because of the cost that that is the evidence at that point in time and what the plan is they were very blunt suspects there is going to be a plan just like there wasn't two thousand and two goes to the h r person to ask if there is and she says about twenty yeah i think she says i don't know for sure but she says it's highly unlikely there's going to be such a plan because of the costs involved explanation of or indications when the plan was evolved so it's their point judge of knowing exactly when caterpillar formulated this plan it's true the case didn't when that plan was formulated rackley as you know late last this when i don't think we can say that i don't think we can say that because we don't know and was based on the need in the law we want to point out to you again that the plaintiff was aware of the prior process when care of the work shuts down a plant or changes production methods dollars difference and what he would have receded and he stayed until december of two thousand and eight does he have damage of course he has so i think that the only real issue in a promissory estoppel argument is is it an unambiguous problematic so i don't think that that is a speculative prevention at that point in time everyone is operating within the realm of asking specific fast villar wants to know specifically if they're going to be a voluntary as we go but before i get into the merits of the claims i would just like to first address this timing issue in terms of when caterpillar came up with the plan to offer a voluntary separation offer and let's be clear this was not a plant closure came up with this plan and the reason for that is that we believe that the timing of when they come came up with a voluntary separation plan is really irrelevant villager alleges that he spoke only to going about this plan he discussed the possibility of the voluntary separation offer only with her it is undisputed that she did not know about the voluntary separation offer in june of two thousand she's put in sworn testing merit testimony that she did not know about the offer in june of two thousand me mr williamson said we don't know when she found that offer that is untrue she testified that she found out about the offer on december twenty second two thousand and eight when caterpillar announced it to everybody at the company it was a company wide offer and that's when she found out so we know she didn't know about the offer when he spoke to her it is very relevant and is a relative factor i think because i well i argument i inferred repeatedly that she said there is not going to be a player there is not going to be an offer that simply is not the case if you look at mr villager sworn testimony regarding his conversation with linda go wins when he was asked what did she say to you he answered three raids she told me it's highly unlikely that there's going to be an offer because of products she told me she has no knowledge of such an offer and she told me that she was unaware of such an offer she did not make any definite statements that there wasn't going to be one and she certainly didn't lie to him he sought out her she was not put out by caterpillar to go speak to mr villager and go tell him hey go forward with your retirement there's not going justice wright is correct that essentially she's saying your guess is as good as mine i think it's unlikely because of cause i don't know about it so we know that she didn't know about it in june of two thousand and eight we know that she didn't find out about it till the summer of two thousand and eight and it's separation offers she didn't seek him out he walked into the h r office she happens to be sitting there and they had a casual conversation between themselves about their own retirement in terms of the age discrimination case mr williamson has said that the lower court's decision should be overturned because it was based on fraud so there are multiple pages the front of it there are multiple bases on which the court can affirm summary judgment in this case and one of those is one of the basis on which  you lie which is that villager didn't present direct evidence of discrimination his decision to say that to prevail under that direct method of proof villager bears the burden of coming forward with a direct or circumstantial evidence that exact same position he was on june fifteenth completely free to keep working at caterpillar so he decided to retire and according to forced him to retire they didn't advise him to retire they didn't even encourage him to retire this was  was motivated by his age so just as we discussed he doesn't believe that she would have said something different to him if he was a younger employee that's this testimony so nice a if i was ten twenty thirty forty fifty sixty she was going to say the same thing to me he admits that he's not aware of any younger employees who learned of the v s p voluntary separation program before december of two thousand and eight he's not aware of any younger employees were advised to delay retirement mr builders older brother benefited from the voluntary separation offer he retired pursuant to am mr villager testified that hey had i stayed until december two thousand me i would have been eligible for the voluntary separation off and that's obviously what the issue is in this case so he's admitting that this was offered to aldridge is it was offered to younger employees it wasn't a plan to benefit one age class versus another it's class in news admissions  ary in terms of his similarly situated analysis contrary to what mr williamson said we do not attack him on whether the individuals he identified are similarly situated we see it in our memories is that he has been identified similarly situated younger employees who are treated better at all he's identified a brother who's two years older he's identified very pickett in war and well might be who are his age or younger we don't know if they're under forty his burden to come forward with this evidence he could have requested that discovery he dead so we don't know if they're under forty and he's testified that he doesn't even really know what separation benefits mr pickett or mr well my god he used to see me w their actions as we've discussed go ins reason for her action is she told me she didn't know it was you know i don't have any knowledge because she didn't have any knowledge it wasn't because using any she didn't know how to feel or didn't inform villager of the v s p because he didn't work there anymore in december of two thousand and villagers that forth no facts that there was a pretext for discrimination and other of their lives to cover up discrimination and mr builder has argued in his brief that he doesn't need to show i don't know mr miller to say look i think there is going to be an offer and mr villager testifying at that time i definitely quote unquote definitely believed there was going to be a voluntary separation offer so if religare didn't believe that what mr jones was telling him was true how could he have reasonably relied on that statement we don't need a jury to tell us whether it's reasonable to rely on something you think is false in making your retirement decision unambiguous promise like i said throughout the brief and during the arguments today there's been an assertion that mr go and said there will be no severance pay and there won't be such an offer they're not contemplating such an offer if we go back to the and actually put this one testimony that's not how mr villager has described the conversation he described it as it's unlikely i have no knowledge i am not aware and your honor is exactly right he says with these  think maybe i can make these into computer code it's a problem work with me and i'll turn this into computer code and and then the mortgage case that he cites in his brief in that case the mortgage officer said there are a number of loans available to you he gave you for the stuff to complete the loan application you worked with her for eight months it's very different from this case reads a one off casual conversation where mr villagers comes forward to miss goans he's asked her warnings tell that the villager why didn't she immediately say to him i don't know anything about the biology issue that's not part of my job yes i'm in the age of our department but you're talking to the wrong person go talk to s list i know what you did in two thousand and two and are you going to do it again and your honor must go on further reflection point not you but i don't think when caterpillar actually formulated the voluntary stop ration is relevant to the each case it's certainly relevant to the promissory estoppel case we have a proof or omens for age discrimination he's in the protected class nat's undisputed he suffered