here argument now in the case of bio against inventive race is national origin we believe we have presented sufficient facts to survive summary judgment under the mcdonnell douglas paradigm we believe there is only really two the typical standard is the similarly situated standard but in many reduction of force the standard is whether or not the plaintiffs in job duties have been absorbed by individuals also out of his protected seal was a manager in the statistical programming group and steve benjamin was the associate director of the statistical programming and media immediately prior to mr beals termination only project that she had been working on which was a little the project eli lilly i think three days before mr beale was terminated was terminated and she was concerned about what she was going to do next she had in fact had a conversation they were doing analytical software testing and that's exactly what they were doing when they worked under mr beale also regards to steve benjamin mr bill prices terminations consulted with another associate director  steve benjamin communicated with nancy fish bottom line ladies and gentlemen i'm sorry gentleman with this evidence shows is that mr bill's job duties were transferred over to employees outside his protected class so we believe that we have presented sufficient evidence to refute prima facia case we're also know that the district court also concluded that we have prevented top present sufficient evidence to prove a stablished in fact when what and indeed no one else assumed that work and counsel gets a bit fast and loose about referring to the lily work in the district court did a good job of clarifying what we're talking about he can debate how you whether we should have been organized the way we work he can debate whether there was a better business way teams than the way they were organized but there is no record evidence to dispute the fact that mr bill's team was organized to deal specifically and exclusively with that heads down programming was based on e a specific contract for a little lilly determine to what is heads down programming it is number crunching a fair question about using phrases that are likely to be familiar to generalists really feel something and i apologize for not the most generic way to describe this is that assigned to mr b o s team to crunch the numbers to do the basic analysis when they were done with that analysis they returned that work to i e should the sillies team and went back to level it is understood in this which brings us to the point that mr b oh then either you view it as favorable for him or unfavorable started freelancing and going to get other work from other managers that was different than the work his team was formed to do and he kept his team busy doing that while we respectfully disagree with the district court's conclusion i should back up in as much as he cannot show a discriminatory animus and he cannot come because the court ultimately found and i quote abused position as a manager and the work of the team he managed was dedicated to specific work governed by a contract with lilly that specific work eventually conclude o s arguments and evidence did not dispute these facts it appears that below simply hope that by keeping his team members busy on other managers project if you would be able to retain that is the most clear existing statement of this position perhaps even more problematic for mr b o is the obvious and on challenge diversity of his team of programmers of those ten programmers he identified there was a k a data hired him and promoted him knowing he was black and from niger in that event and found positions for all of his team with their diverse backgrounds and national there is no support in the record for it that there was any discriminatory laid off because of lack of work we don't have to call them in your honor we refer the court to the discords own decision we agree that that analysis simply does not apply in this case as the court held in the griffin v sisters of st francis case in two thousand and seven and in the small vs illinois department public health case in two thousand and thirteen in essence the analysis is where you have a unique position and there is subsequent work that remains but that position is a limit the court says will look at this a different analysis you don't have to show that comp however that is all premised on the notion that the substantive work remains here as in britain as in small that sub and work did not remain in griffin the port specifically found that a plane is jobs there the analysis did not apply when a plane of job duties were not absorbed by other employees quinn employer discontinued the type of work the plaintiff perform and even more directly on point is the small case for this  found in a manager students were not absorbed by others even where her subordinates were retained and reassigned because the division where she worked was disbanded and the manager position that is precisely what occurred in th work for which the team was a staff sign and for which it was assigned went away no one disputes that that specific work went away and that work was not absorbed the district works without citing to any case and this of this court simply said that it's reasonable to infer that newly assigned managers perform similar management tasks that b o had been performing as a man that that's not the standard and that couldn't be the state simply says we have some general management duties were taken on by others there is no disputing the record this work went away there's no dispute with that team no longer perform that work and should note specifically his anger affidavit counsel referenced please read that carefully because mr zang only says that the work i was doing at the when mr videos employment was terminated was the same work i was doing for ms that's not the issue the issue is quite clearly he never says that i was doing the same work the team was designed to do on that heads down program that work went away that is beyond dispute so the zang affidavit simply proves our point which is that mr beale tried to freelance and take on projects for a variety of other teams and variety of other manager that was not the work  down programming that's really just a disparaging way to to refer to mr beale work he was doing more than numbers crunching he was doing programming work just like the rest of the he and his team were doing programming work just like the rest of the programmers and just to make certain for the court when counsel says that the work that the work that mr bill and his team was doing went away that is simply not true and there in the record were clearly state that the work that he w mr beale that were transferred to steve benjamin those programmers were also still doing the exact same work that they were doing under mr b of the advanced software testing so it is simply not true that the work they mis