yes yes so what is the evidence that you rely on that he played i mean i think your adversary says he played essentially a ministerial role in posting notices and the like but so what is the evidence that what you rely that recognize that you point to the comment made by mr mullen about be content you're an immigrant that was and is i understand that was in two thousand and seven is that right as curriculum and that the promotions that you  i mean this is a summary judgment we're not in a motion to dismiss face and i wonder what else you would point to other thing kind of general circumstances that  the white man got the director ship and the deputy director ship is left open for a period what else is there in the record that suggests that any individual of those named are those proposed to be named as a to prevent him from being promoted it starts from two thousand and ten when he was recommended all the way up to the present at every point in time there will not move forward with his own promotion in two thousand and thirteen as a pending you know against order individuals including mr maule in and also mistyped for the opposition not for the ones in this lawsuit now there is evidence on the record that no black man has ever been promoted to be a direct may please the court linda thang on behalf of the individual defendants apple lees this court should affirm the judgment as the questioning to mr to my adversarial lead up to my presentation here there really was no triable issue of fact as to the personal involvement of any of the individual defendants in this case it's just that with regard to stark i mean she was deputy executive director  she says in her declaration that she no longer had direct oversight of d c i in two thousand and thirteen but she had general supervisory responsibilities i was trying to figure out whether she was a member of the executive staff or  and it this court's precedents consistently require more than just being up on the chain of command so the relevant question for purposes of her liability personally and her in official capacity was when she did she play a decision making role with respect to the challenge employment actions in this case so being in a member of the executive or being the head of an agency does not automatically impede there's no title seven claim here what is the record show about who made the the fact that over the time the deputy director position was not filled and that mr may go ahead consistently i understand strong reviews and i find it difficult to tell exactly who made the decision bureaucracy titles aren't so transparent so does could you tell me what the record says about who made the decision as to the appointment of the director of two thousand and thirteen and the decision not to appoint a deputy director for an extended period of time so with respect to the actions that are a challenge in this case not the state court action which of the two hundred and two thousand and ten actions here the record is clear that dorothy carey was the chief of staff at the time at the state insurance fund and she has unequivocal testimony that she approved the recommendation that was made by peter coup sec and robert salman's who were the interviewers or robert salman's and those were the two individuals who interviewed mr and mango for the director and the deputy director positions in september of two thousand and thirteen the record is clear on that both mr q nd mr salmon said they made a collective recommendation higher up the chain and maybe mr salmon's wasn't clear on who particularly was a specific individual who may be signed and approved the recommendation but they recommended mister who had extensive experience as an outside candidate investigating complex fraud to receive the director position and the record is clear on those facts and there is no evidence whatsoever that mr  o'brien miss dorothy carey was the one who said i proved this and then sent it up to the change at the governor's office i believe the deposition testimony is clear on that so that is the body of the be i think the record is that mr salmon is mr q sick and mr kerry were the ones who were directly involved and i think mr o'brien was a person who sat in on the nd interview but you know not everyone who input in the decision making and that testimony was consistent with mr downer's testimony that once he came in as director they did interview individuals for the deputy director position but they just other matters took precedence and they would be his or her nd in command of the unit and that's all that there is in the record as to why that director the deputy director position was not filled immediately and mr downer said we yes we interviewed folks and we were in the position of trying to select someone but we just did not get around to filling that position has been filled now i thought it was still not filled and in fact i think mr sisson actually doing those  and was not raised below asked you whether or not he functionally was performing there is the allegations that he was but it's not material to the but the issues here and if i could just briefly sum up to talk about  you know it's one thing whether or not someone was employers make decisions on employment matters for a variety of different reasons but what is also missing here aside from the personal involvement issue which is only one element of what plaintiff would have to satisfy there was no tribal issue as to whether or not any of the challenge employment actions here were taken for discriminatory reasons or for retaliatory reasons and that is also an element that plaintiff needs to carry forth and as just report pointed out in fact the addition of the additional proposed defendants here would have added nothing to his claims because all we have is an alleged remark that's a spirited that was made  hundred and seventy six years before so yeah i'm sorry i've made this mistake for two thousand and seven that's correct six years or seven years before the challenge employment actions here under this court's precedent that's a classic straight remark and we have individuals here an independent individual liability so whether or not mr mullin may have made that remark if he did not participate in the employment actions here those remarks are not going to be construed to the actual decision makers here and there's challenge cision players had ample opportunity to bring all whatever factual discovery in there was extensive discovery here any of those issues up for consideration in the district court in fact the district court found in the summ judgment motion there was no evidence and then adding those additional defendants would not have added anything to his claims and if the court has no other questions we ask you  source who we have the final decision on make us and that includes mr maule and that includes ms stack for the director position secondly miscarries