issues presented in this case and we believe the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it accepted the facts alleged by the defendant as true while at the same go time required disregarding facts after the october two thousand you can point your client's salary was raised by more than forty percent in an eligible for part time benefits and i think other things wen  however after that occurred there was additional protected activity that mr egli already proceeded with the primary issue that mr gagliardi had raised in the past and continue to r sixteen that letter was not addressed by sacred heart until a meeting between mr gagliardi and mr hardy of the human resources department on september arrive for practice at three o'clock the official time for practice to start was three hundred and thirty he admits that this was based on his schedule that he was working another job but  know handle his coaching duties in the manner that he saw best fit and what he determined was that based on the schedule it made sense to have the tennis team show up early get warmed up and then be able to get the most out of the practice beginning at three hundred and thirty dollars during the time that he was doing this year on and there were no objections this was something that was being done in the open  d it will know for the record that when sacred heart went back after the fact to investigate whether there were student complaints because there are surveys of players there were no complaints on the players about this having it was a regular practice of both tennis coaches to use the assistant to cover matches there's evidence that the women's coach did this is well there was a discussion about the yukon tournaments and the fact that the assistant coach mr cooke would be covering the friday portion of the of the tournament at the same time there was a discussion of a conflict that mr women's tennis coach had and he had intended to use mr cook to cover that conflict unfortunately in the interim mr cook broke his ankle which meant that mr cook could no longer there certainly mr gagliardi as the head coach but also mr boss tell me as the director of tennis would have had an obligation to do their best to do that there there are record as to the hours for those particular weeks there is evidence however that mr jackley already had started tracking is  timekeeping system and your honor will note that in our r p fers we we know that it was extremely unclear to everyone whether coaches were supposed to be entering their time or not but i'm not asking about whether he was obligated to register his time or not i'm asking whether he has even his own self serving whatever he wrote down and felt that the bind is there any record at all on his behalf that says during this final year when i'm insisting on working twenty five hours i actually worked twenty five hours every week or worked twenty hours one week and thirty the next gagliardi began raising complaints the very complaint he raised in july of two thousand and sixteen dating back to at least two thousand and six judge and as judge bolden correctly bolden questioned albon would it be that you could show that terminations in two thousand and sixteen was retaliatory when for the span of his career at the university he had been raising the same issues to just defies common sense i'd like to go to some your other questions judge which which is why it would be an employer would not terminate a head coach of a division athletics team who showed up to every practice late and then skipped part of and came late to the two only tournaments that were held that fall and i think that's the correct question and i think that's where judge bolden ultimately landed on his decision he's our new vision want to athletes operating at the highest level of collegiate athletics they devote a significant amount of time to this they could have gone to other colleges yet they chose the secret our university mr gagliardi had a very significant responsibility for the care attention and mentoring of these athletes but what he did your honor in the summer of two thousand and sixteen he took a job with the as sony a school district knowing that it would conflict with his responsibilities at the university and indeed that is why he was late to every human resources and there are notes about that and and that was the basis for his terminations and i would also say your your honor that it isn't correct what attorney hisor said that practice started at three hundred and thirty dollars practices nastar three hundred and th plant testified in his deposition that practice started at three but what he chose to do instead was let the young man have all around until he showed up for practice so it's that it's the university's position that judge bold summary judgment a plaintiff must produce not simply some evidence but sufficient evidence to support a rational finding that the legitimate nondiscriminatory resist proffered by the defendant were false and that more likely than not discrimination was the real reason for the employment action there is no way on this record that mr ghastlier a submitted that type of evidence he fusses around with the notes of rob hardy about the decision making to terminate him and he considers those notes the way he wants construe those and he also talks about some stray comments that brad homer and by valentine athletics administrators ma none of those comments have anything to do with the decision to terminate and there's simply no evidence what ever that he either met the prime official case for his claims or that he has evidence of pretext once again and i don't think this can be emphasized enough these claims of equal pay and part time status date back to at least two thousand and six and if the plaintiff asa quibble with that in two thousand and fourteen he raised these in an email to human resources he was given a good evaluation after that he was rehired after that in two thousand and fifteen he raised them again he was given another good evaluation he was rehired then in two thousand and sixteen he raised the issue again yet he was rehired allowed to start his job but yet he was oppositional defiant would not show up to practice on time and probably worse yet fail to show up and showed up late to two significant tournaments at u conn and at yale you want to i'm one minute on the power issue yes i would your honor thank you very much i don't have ponchos i didn't get into he was the director of the program and he supervised mr pistole so i think i think the plan we would agree with that that he can't compare his pay mr distilleries because mr stelly was paid for the additional responsibilities he had cites to some of the women's programs teams at the university you can't compare himself to those teams st those teams all had larger rosters than his team too he wasn't qualified to coach any of those sports so you can't make that comparison and rd the the pay structure team structure budgets for other teams are all decided in a very complex d way that takes into account i'm on other things the university wide gender equity compliance under title nine and so it's not it would not be a linear comparison by any stretch to say because the women's  full time head coach i'm being discriminated against because i wasn't paid on a full time basis that that would fail that beckham not be an appropriate comparison mr gagliardi points to the bagley case which has to do with comparison a professors but that might be an apt and apt comparison a professors generally they may have different disciplines in their academic field but generally professors have more comparable  responsibilities d with a university that is not so in athletics and the player is outside in one case your honor well which allows him to make that comparison and judge bolden correctly pointed that out all right thank you gender your honor that it's our position that the gender of the decision makers is irrelevant it's that it's that gender and the teams that are being gender of the mean not only of the players were far more disciplined say that again your honor i'm sorry i mean none of this this case doesn't involve anything that happened to me the female players no of course not your honor this is a claim by the coach if if the comparing or analysis is limited in a coaching perspective to just coaches of the same sport then huge numbers of coaches would never have a comparison and just act you have a record that supports discrimination on the basis of gender and what do you what do you what are you pointing to sure mister gagliardi unlike all of the female coaches so there's so so what you have is there are women's coaches in other sports who are full time but the only male coaches in tennis are part time and the gulf coach is part time watching both men's and women's so having a little trouble understanding it's not you know yes all the female coaches are full time that the the gender of the coaches who happen to be coaching women's teams ok i got it and are you still pressing a title mind when so your honor i know it's that the title nine claim in the title seven fla who is male would make or is that only playing for the students to make assuming anyone has an individual right of that your honor i believe that and honestly i don't know that that's an issue in this case but i believe that that would have to be frame of the students ok let's i'm wondering what your title line playing is i understand that he has a title seven flaying based on gender discrimination against him and i think there's at least a the race discrimination claims of that sort where a white employee says i was reminded again not on this the being white but on the basis of the fact that i was friendly with a black and something like that but that's still a title same arguments and the and the side only then the claim is based on the fact that he's being mistreated as a man not as a coach of men's team or am i wrong about that no