good morning honors are my name is ed koc and i'm an attorney representing the do so precedent of this court dictates that age discrimination cases be resolved on the merits  district court's error in this case is that it viewed the facts through the eyes of an educated experienced federal judge instead of viewing the facts as they actually occurred  through an immigrant from the gonna who had a very vested interest in strictly following the instructions that were given to him regarding the separation  agreement a german company purchased paul and began a process of eliminating all of the older higher earnings for their employees mr so was one of those employees on january th that he was given the separation agreement and he was told at that time and subsequently confirmed in an email that that separation had to be returned to pamela denmark now paul actually allowed the requisite forty diet forty five dollars day period for him to review this under the older workers act but the actual facts and these are the facts that the district court overlooked and supplanted the discretion of the jury the actual facts were that he had to return that to pamela denmark error in that and the error that the district court made is over looking the fact that pamela denmark personally told you so that she was leaving the paul corp she was also getting the ax she said you have to deliver this to me on feb st now there's an e mail where your client asks what the deadline is and on january th he's told the dead want from this denmark the deadline is february th remember i won't be here after february st so it's clear from that email of the deadlines february th and it doesn't relate to whether she's going to be there or not she instead of him i'm leaving on february st you have to get it to me if you're honored that is your most respectfully your very sophisticated understanding of that when you're looking at this through the eyes of mr so now remember here this is the important part about it confusion is that at a prior times debt pamela denmark and in the separation agreement itself on and seven different occasions says you have to return this doesn't that necessarily follow that pamela denmark asked to be there on february th now if if he wants to graps the sixty eight thousand dollars that he's entitled to get under the separation agreement he's thinking that he has to very strictly comply with what he is being told and this conversation that i'm having with your honor here is emblematic of just exactly why we need a jury trial here because there are two different reasonable interpretations under the precedent of this court these cases are to be resolved on the merits most respectfully your honor you are bringing up some very good points and i submit to you that i have some good points here judge scotland should not have resolved that in favor of the defendant those are jury issues and more importantly this court says in age discrimination cates we very much favor a resolution of these cases on the merits so he is being told he's losing his job he's never been disciplined he loves being an american he wants to do this thing right so he's being told yes this has to be back by february th and then he's also being told you have to deliver this to pamela denmark pamela denmark is not going to be there because she is losing brings up what does that mean dip to the attention of that when you know we were lawyers your your your judges what do you have an idea about to the attention of that person if you're from the g couldn't you just as reasonably say i better hand this to her in person i have to bring this to her attention isn't that also a reasonable interpretation of that your honor doesn't that entitle the burden is on them to make this clear and unambiguous everything that your honour's are receiving here is actually supporting my argument this is not clear this is not an ambiguous this man his whole life is being turned upside down it's the purpose for the age discrimination act either he strictly follow everything that he's being told to do or he doesn't get the sixty thousand dollars in severance pay ok it is paul's responsibility to make this clear paul could have straightened all of this stuff out they didn't do that thinks that's what he has to do to get the money he sees online so he's resigned he signed a release everything is done he sees online that paul is advertising on my resignation and there fill in my job that i had for eighteen years that's not right judge that's not right to do that to someone and if we're to follow the precedent of this court this has to be resolved on the merits judge scullin made a mistake here thank you more your honor may please the court my name is ray baldwin and i'm here on behalf of the paul corporation mr so knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to sue the paul corporation the agreement he was provided told him that he had forty five dollars days to consider it told me at seven days to revoke it told him that he would receive not sixty eight thousand dollars and fifty one thousand dollars in consideration for releasing those rights consideration to which he was otherwise not entitled he told him what the decision of the unit was in the central technology organization and as required  position title and age all those who were within the central technology organization and who were eligible to receive severance when they lost their jobs and those who would remain principal scientist within the central technology organization the job that was posted was an engineer to position i'm quite confident based on his experience and abilities mr could have done that job but that was not his job and of course he never applied for it as the court would see in the record mr south began to walk away from that statement that it was his job in deposition and at the lower court and in fact testified that only that it was a job he was qualified for i dare say that there were many jobs at the corporation for which a man of his ability and knowledge was qualified for the agreement advised mr to consult with an attorney and he did with mr capo mr south testified that he and his attorney went over and every fine line of the green went after that review and after at least two inquiries with human resources and by the way mr south testified that he knew the head of human resources miss carr and he knew of miss denmark so he certainly knew how to contact human resources if he had questions but after that review mr sal's signed the agreement and returned it not on february one as m that on january th two thousand and sixteen when he returned it and by signing it by its plain terms he was representing that he read it that he had plenty of time to consider it and that he is that he was somehow confused about the forty five day period justice livingston hit the nail on the proverbial head the agreement contains a large box right at the top that says delivered to employer on or before february th th in this idea that somehow when a request is made that a document or correspondence be delivered to the attention of some person means that that is the only person to which it could be delivered he's lacking any support in the law contrary to common sense and contrary to the plain terms of the agreement which makes clear as judge bianco said that it says deliberate to the employer mr sauer also argues that the use of the word certain somehow created confusion with respect to the decision and unit i submit to the court that it did not as evidence by mr sow's own complaint at paragraph forty one which states the rift expressly states the decision on unit to be the central technology organization division southam masters prepared mathematician he met with an experienced attorney he reviewed every fine line of the agreement that agreement met all the requirements of the w b p a and mr self signed it and received his fifty one thousand dollars in compensation we asked the court to affirm the grant of summary judgment below there are no disputed material facts here and in fact the sole effort to create a disputed material fact turned out to be the alteration improperly of an e mail communication thank you you know order to sustain the district court your honour's have to be convinced that there are no genuine issues of material fact just this argument just what we hear it we did hear this morning demonstrates there are genuine issues about the return date on this there were there are genuine says on feb th two thousand and sixteen i saw the online pol advisement for the job ever ties meant for the job duties and responsibilities identical to the job that i had performed that's the answer to your honor question that creates a genuine issue of material fact of whether they were setting up an older employee to lop him off so they could get someone younger with and pay them less money mr mr so did everything that he was told to do and he he deprived himself of the opportunity so says judge scullin to come after paul for misleading they created this ambiguity that violates the c f r that violates the older workers act and it violates the age discrimination they could have straighten this out your honor asked the question about the employer council's answer to that is extraordinarily misleading because in fact it does say employer in one instance in seven other instances seven other instances it says to the attention of pamela demo you have to give this back mr so is thinking i have to give this to pamela denmark to the attention of pamela denmark when he does that they they got him they got his signature on this stuff and they almost immediately actually shamelessly advertise for a near identical job how is that a proper reduction in force it's these are identical to the facts that i need to prove to a jury and that's what i'm asking the opportunity to do thank you so much thank you beth and we will take the matter under