defendant objected to none to all of them the court failed to rule on any of them and each of those should be deemed admissible i will address briefly if i may but you know that's just put that aside for a moment  hope i hope proceed your of under the special district rules of asking the parties to submit your statement of undisputed fact and your counter statement is simply an aide for the district court to see where are their where do the material where is their material dispute in the facts i agree ok so you don't treat them you know you don't it doesn't work the way you is there genuine dispute about whether that reason was pretext that requires a trial i agree that your honor so what facts we point to that show that there is a raised dealt with whether or not glaxo had a good faith belief that my client violated its policies there was evidence that in fact countered the evidence submitted by the on that issue the second place there was substantial evidence and specific evidence of pretext presented by the plaintiff to show that the true reason my recollection is that there was a dinner and at the dinner rolf says one thing was said and his boss who persuaded her boss to get rid of them had another thing was so it looks as though there's an issue of material fact about who said what at the dinner and i want to know if that's true there really when i'm dead does basically call the other a liar in the and if it's material act can you refresh my recollection on the dinner certainly on this dinner consisted of four individuals dr cassandra richards an independent consultant for a testimony and provided declaration that he never promised anything to dr richards paul miller who was president promise he promised to try to help them crash ron paul never testified absolutely there was no promise made whatsoever and if roman ever done that he would have reported them to plaque so the only evidence that the  bit of their belief that he had violated this policy was all lines telephone conversation with dr richards her telephone conversation with nicky glitchy and her conversation with wrong that was the establish a genuine issue well i need is a genuine issue from rome and i thought that at the dinner his boss says that one thing was said and rome says another thing with in here here's part of the problem the defendant first claimed that there was an actual violation then they drop back and say that it didn't matter if there was a violation or not it was just whether or not there was a good thing a belief that he had violated and that goes to the coach frank case cited by the defendant in this matter the california supreme court which sets forth specific requirements on the defendant to put for substantial evidence to support a good faith belief and plaintiff in this case to suggest there was no good faith belief there was no substantial evidence as in cotai man i'm not sure you're right it seems if i understand the law right if they fire  because of his age and the notion that he tried to basically bribe a customer was a mere pretext then he gets to go to trial if he's got evidence of that  if they fired him because they thought he tried to bribe a customer even though they were just totally out in left field but it had nothing to do with age it had to do with their mistaken belief that he tried to bribe a customer they went you don't get to go to trial that's wrong but i got that right so far at least so now what i want to know is where is the evidence that they fired him where's the evidence arising out of this dinner i remember as being critical that they fired him because of age or to put it more specifically that the claim that they fired him because of an attempt to bribe a customer wa mere pretext the evidence to support this pretext begins with the very fact set forth in co transco trance required for specific things to establish there was a good faith belief they didn't exist in this case in they had to reach an honest honestly for an appropriate investigation after notice to the planet and after an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond none of that was done in this case one investigation was done to determine that rome had violated company policy there was no investigation done and in fact owns his superior fail to even interview paul no or a crucial witness to this case she knew he existed failed to refer that information to investigation whatsoever concluded on those facts alone that roman violated this policy and therefore recommended terminations who made the suggestion that rome be fired compliance office recommended reprimand of terminations carry schelling's an h r recommended reprimand or terminations aliya or ones made the decision according to sterling's to terminate wrong and based on that fact and combination of all the things that were withheld in addition to the prime facie case of age discrimination all the information withheld by owens to the h r department and the h r and compliance departments failure to honestly investigate procedures in addition like getting a field i mean they can be rotten bosses but as long as they don't fire and because they think he's too old they're ok ok addressing specifically the age discrimination defense never countered the prime  doctor and then when he couldn't come up with the money the doctor complained to the drug company well the evidence is the controverted that evidence there is that that he never made any promise to or she was greedy he had told bones about these demanding let's say we go a little further what is the specific evidence that it was pretext the specific evidence stems was the repeated continuing discriminatory disparate treatment we set forth in multiple this was a firing after for ages and that the claim that they were firing him because of his attempt to bribe a customer was a mere pretext yes you are both owns and glaxo repeatedly favors showed favor to younger employees for advancement and promotion there were ten denials of promotion that rome tried to get given to younger people there were five cases now it's one disgruntled customer at who claims he tried to if he promised her a lot of money and then didn't come through with it what is there in the record that would show that the company knew that the customer was not telling the truth there's nothing in the record that the company did anything to verify that either way  the customer complaining promised her money and didn't come through with it yes your honor that goes to the retaliation claim there was no discussions about terminations until my client reported all the discrimination and harassment about all and says what's been done a lot of action taken on on rome and subsequently with no investigation the decision was made without any good cause hearing or anything to terminate him and multiple officers for retaliation counsel i remembered what it was that was in the back of my mind about a contradiction and i want you to enlighten me on it yesterday if i understood the record right now i'm not sure i did customer what he said was merely that he would try to be helpful to the customer something like that that's correct if i got this right you have that right and what confirms the difference of these testimonies  three things but leon's testified she didn't even know what the letter grand amount was she didn't know specifically what policy wrong actually violated and she even approved the two requests made by dr richardson glitchy for twenty five hundred dollars within the grand policy initiative gunter's twenty five hundred or five thousand for talking medical education you know and this doctor wanted forty grand in her pocket for being a presenter absolutely possible to four hundred thousand dollars another demands confirmed by palmer and yet owns knew this but yet still conveyed this message to h r that this man in her opinion in mid of violating the policy she didn't even know which policy it was or what the limits were that's her testimony are she was impeached repeatedly in a deposition and her declaration conflicted with the statement you understand i'm not i don't care who what turns was not if i wasn't in mission if he admitted well i know i violated this important company policy about bribing customers then he'd be out even if you just did it once right admitted he knew the policy had passed to great task one hundred percent he knew the to test one hundred percent he knew the policy and there was absolutely no motive or incentive your honor for him to violate that policy his peers testified they had never heard him violate any policy or make any such promises in court trying coltrane interview had already gone to malaya once before the complaint and said i have problems with her help me what do i do she just trying to donaldson i'm off to some district manager to try to help him so he had to just deal with it the  think what happened i thought she started mr miller to helping assigned another district manager initially i believe your honor and then miller got involved and then miller went to this meeting and the letter was unimpeachable his testimony my problem in this case well we'll never know exactly what's true whether the doctor was shaking down rome or whether rome was trying to bribe the doctor and that's not what we decide but it looks like would have to conclude that there was a pretext is all the other hires are under forty his boss makes a whole lot of needling remarks about as they age and there's false for taishan biased boss about what she was told and you can infer from falsification that the truth is adverse to a party and if he's believed dr richards was shaking them down his boss knew it and used it as a pretext to fire him when the real reason was she had some problem with people over forty why isn't that enough for a genuine issue well i don't think the by declaration it is absolutely undisputed it was not said that it was disputed i thought wrong said that's not true no he that she complained that he didn't know he says that he made the promise is not true but the fact of the complain but she's in a bind because she thought she'd be able to get twenty or four hundred or whatever then he's not in a bind he did not violate company policy is that right that's correct but but she just she had a good faith belie for what she regards as old man and is looking for the first excuse so i would do that's really what the case is about is it a pretext well and i would submit that that evidence is very very slim if certainly not specific get he had no evidence that it was not because of age ms owens wasn't a decision maker on all of them on and none of them was ms i was just you know something that would have really aroused me if i had been i am working for the company and wondering what was going on if i had been in a different department from owens or rome would have been the way this doctor sure is grasping she she wants a lot of money we don't usually give out that kind of money and she's making calls he did say in that phone call he did say that he had told dr richards he would pay for food and speakers on the side and that would be a separate violation and he disputes that and i agree that's an undisputed that is a disputed once something is disputed there's  crucial evidence of paul in our from h r she never contacted him the second crucial fact there was absolutely no investigation of either wrongs claim against owns or richard's claim against  third there was no opportunity for wrong to give his side of the story she withheld his own written explanation and no hearing of any kind given the chance to a man that had given his life to them for twenty five years thank you