permission to reserve two minutes of my time for rebuttal so it should before the court is whether the district court erred in finding that mr sprague had failed to present sufficient evidence to stabilize that predecessor mr patrick bergen a white man committed numerous violations of its policies and procedures in performing his chair up f c removed mr brougham from his position and directed him to find a new job which turned out to be a promotion the relevant legal standards for determining what the summary judgment in a race discrimination case is appropriate to one in considering summary judgment motions the a sufficient legal factual disagreement to require submission of the case to the jury or whether the evidence is so one sided that the moving party should prevails law in this case the was involved in the whole kickback scheme and he did so without any excuse number three patrick bergen admitted to selling to personally owned vehicles to employees of chr report quotes from a recorded telephone conversation between mr bergen and a tender who was involved in the alleged kickback scheme where he told the vendor to destroy evidence in the regard possible quick fix secondly there was a nd report mr bergen and there was a closing report that the investigators did and they said in that report quote during the course of the investigation oh their policy violations were identified close quote also in that report they said conclusions closed with near the phrase the investigation finally there's a piece of evidence in th creation of any contractor mr berg was there is correct there was the finding the tape recorder that he directed someone to destroy evidence there was and there was a fine by the trial court in his opinion impeach thirteen that here the court found kickbacks those allegations would have been on par and made them similarly situated never fired he got a plant job at the trend engine plant plant and he received a promotion he got a higher pay level in a one thousand dollars more a month immediately after he was removed from the purchasing position one point that he could find he found that with respect to the issue of mr bergen it's alleged kickbacks that there was no evidence to substantiate it in conclusive evidence but the trial well so did mr bergen but the trial court ignores all of the evidence indicating that mr bergen committed wrongdoing and yet he is promote no evidence of the  acting in the same similar positions for a while but in this case one person seated in the into the position but it's not that they were both you know initially assistant principals who are not similar situated is it so the plaintiff need ned demonstrate an exact correlation with the employee receiving more favorable treatment in order for the two to be considered similarly situated case in employment involving the issue similarly situated in their case you had a twenty one year employee of federal express a supervisor who is fifty seven years so it was an age of school nation he had no  discipline a tooth final year of his employment when he's written up three times what is described in the opinion his minor policy violations and then he's discharged the plaintiff in that case claimed younger employees similarly situated none of them were even disciplined for any one of the items he was written for the court overturned the summary judgment decision in their case in fact we make clear that this does not mean plaintiff must demonstrate  correlation in order to demonstrate similarly situated in so their case i think is very critical as well there's a nd point that i briefly want to touch upon and there it is mr speight disputed that there was the real motivation for his trimming nation to the extent he would out a series of arguments indicating that he acted in good faith in modifying big numbers because he believed that there was inappropriate or corruption investigators took a but to over session it was done approximately two months after this whole process it to the country to been let and mr spragg during the course of it to our session when they st brought it up to heap disputed question pissed what exactly they were talking about in recalling all had no notes this was an impromptu meeting by the end of the meeting he question of pretext but it's a particular aspect of pretext which is whether the comparative rate that mr spratt has identified is actually similarly situated to mr spratt himself changed the low bid to the hype yet he added two hundred and seventy thousand dollars and a two million dollars contract to a different better he admitted to that and that among con doc contrary to f c s policies it specifically refers to the findings of the investigative report and the investigative report investigate three different claims on the face of occasion which as you pointed out judge clay mr spratt initially denied saying oh i just cut and paste those numbers they are the same there's no reason that they would be any different until shown them and then he had to admit that they were different and that he was the only one who could cha nge them so that's what the investigation report found and also investigated the fact that he had a non disclosed personal relationship with one of the high officials at one of the that you intentionally falsified vanderbilt information and in gauged in contact that appeared to constitute a conflict of interest with the f c a based upon the information obtained during the investigation which included interviews with you and others as well as your admission to among other things line items inventer beds it has been determinate determined that you've been gauged in conduct that is contrary to a political company policies practices and procedures based upon there was lots of this investigation the company has decided in good faith to sever its app well employment relationship with you today so the company's terminations letter as well as deposition testimony from the decision makers relied not merely on the regis fascia cation of company documents but these other conflicts of interest the undisclosed relationship with a vendor or and then having an outside business which mr spratt acknowledged during the investigation could cause an appearance  of a conflict of interest because he was holding himself out as a real estate developer so there were not a single reason there are multiple reasons i think it is evident in that termination letter and it is important because the investigators the f c a did not were not able to conclusively determine that mr ferguson had engaged in the most serious of those allegations and the square in a number of recent decisions seems the contract bidding area at along with the vice president of h r who was responsible for that unit to get their talked reviewed the investigative report nothing to do with this decision it's a different department different h r person there's no record evidence that they had any control over this decision or anything in the record of the three brothers african american that w additional to show that the real reason was discrimination and that's all the different races of these employees of the sole evidence provided there so i did want to address some of the points did have the same they reported to the same supervisor they were similarly situated i would absolutely agree we can gauge in exactly the same misconduct and one person was terminated or disciplined actually i don't think  person was not it was exactly the same misconduct they both had failed to tell how they are upset about some rumors of an affair between high school principal and the parents that's what defers read from this case that the individual's engaged in that case in the same kind that and they did not in this case a reversal of judge goldsmith doesn't mean that necessarily he's wrong in every terminated were incredibly minor there was evidence that nobody else had ever been terminated or disciplined for those minor violations it was outside the norm and that's one of this court's decisions talked about so idiosyncratic that it caused to this court and probably would cause a jury to determine that it was by itself unreasonable i don't think we have that here  then lies about it and eventually admits it thus proving giving the truth confirmation to his employer of his misconduct and the fact that he had good reasons to do it doesn't excuse that misconduct he thought he had good reasons but he didn't tell anyone about those reasons he didn't report his suspicions to anyone in fact he admitted he didn't even have evidence of suspicions instead he took he didn't report it to anybody and as i said he made it that he didn't really have any evidence at that time that there was wrongdoing he just had a suspicion so he took it upon himself he chose  course of action and he suffered the consequences of that that's not a decision that is so idiosyncratic so unbelievable that it on its face his position desirable position within this contract's department he was not directed there's no record of it saying that he was directed to find another job within that company he was allowed to try to find another position so if there's a position you can happen that's the record evidence as to mr perkins position and it's true that mr spratt was not offered that option f c a determined using it business judgment that he had engaged in more serious misconduct than that had ever been filed against mr burke and that's the difference between the two they're not similarly situated  we include an e mail from human resources that was involved in terminations is in top ski in this email dated april th two thousand and seventeen she states to others in human resources we have notified the employed toda e mail you reference terminated sprint was being terminated due to violating standards of conduct number one yes there's no other references in there correct she says no email so the reason was conduct number one like i say that was the primary reason in standards of conduct number one deals with providing false information that's the only thing she cited in her deposition testimony  found that the male compared or had violated direct orders not to disclose confidential information to state and the male compared or was disappointed all the female underwent a number of adverse employment  totally dissimilar from the situation in this case and i think should be put into their considered accordingly in finally with respect to evidence of the facility scooping corrupt in my time is violation of course their policies had a pain bids from the bidders violation in the facilities group it tried with respect to bart melo their favorite company to from the outset help them get the contract with out bid it when the bidding was over by miller was not the low bidder and facilities prevailed in getting barton mail of the contract nevertheless spreads belief in appropriate relationship perhaps