you can put your bags down or not ye but they never but the defendants got it i have the proof this is the  true because not only true deny provides that is the but in that opposition i had the least of the people who are because this is equal employment opportunity case i was not selected for  i my my case was like it's like i was interview it by fire department and i was physically abuse it by one of the person who interviewed me it was and also because of my age and because of my nationality of poland from poland and she interviews while she is so woman interviewed was rejected under title seven and new york state human rights law i don't think so your honor is the the court articulated there was reference to you know a number of factors that indicated that it was properly dismissed and there was reference to another woman that that you talked about who was complaining in the context of society saying that a supported hor her national origin discrimination claim but you point out this other woman she claimed got a double promotion got hired for you know a similar job and then got promoted to this three level as supr at the at the at the pleadings days before the defendant for this is a reason well i would reiterate what i believe that the correct reasons why the court dismissed it i would not though that if if it had gone fine on summary judgment but the plaintiff never got the chance to move her side of the case on summary judgment what i wanted she would have lost that's not an answer to the fact that she met the minimum standard at the at this stage of her case leslie but the articulated reason for why they hired the other person would have been the same and they need to overcome that he would benefit of the opportunity to overcome it or to show that there was a disputed issue of fact but she did she didn't the context of the other kinds i mean the same she made the same the same argument was made that would have made there that she had better qualifications then better in academic qualifications then the man who was hired you're saying you're not disputing that it was erroneous to dismiss it at the at the twelve you know i say that at the record that her inability to overcome the defendants given reason that the summary judgment stage on all her other and eleven or fifteen different claims of discrimination she also would have been there's no reason why her or it would have been different with respect to gender correct john i'm saying that's an alternate reason i'm not conceding that it was necessarily are and i'm saying that if the court believes that it was erroneous to have dismissed the sex claim you would still have reached the alternate reason the trauner just i wonder but i wonder whether you're correct because because she didn't have anything to dispute the the other reason with respect to the she didn't have anything to overcome the defense explanation and all the other claims of discrimination but but maybe she could have had something about something he said something now it could be depends on the circumstances i think the court in this case relied it relied on two factors to find that it hadn't been adequate leasure relied on the allegations that a another woman had actually been hired the similar job and given promotions and i think the court also relied on the fact that the persons the person that she claim was discriminated against was also a member of the same protected class  survives and i think that the alternate argument makes sense in that the same articulated reason for why the did the position was given to someone else would stand in the same arguments would have come into play as to why that was pretextual so there's no there's no reason to revisit it in this context all right thank you