are interchange but they're the same position and he worked at conejo he bay in the range there mr hodges is twenty seven year old twenty seven year u s marine veteran mr hodges worked for a number of years there at the range as a range safety specialist he had a contract renewed every year based upon his evaluations the contract was but i didn't see any contract and what i saw a reference to turned out to be the contract that the contractor had with the government is there a contract that mr hodges himself entered with his employer what would happen is as a yes or no question is there a contract that has his name on it the contract with the government and then they would hire him or fine but they've hired him that doesn't necessarily give him a one year contract he may understand that his employment will be limited to whatever the duration his employer has an arrangement with the government but i haven't seen anything that suggests to me that his employment was anything other than at will well you argue that it's one year contract but the contract you pointed to was not a contract that your client was a party to my client was hired by c g i sorry stanley at the time and they had a one year contract which was renewed every year so what legal authority means that your client had a one year contract because he was renewed have not because what legal authority said that your client had a one year contract that he was an at will employee well if you look ok i have to again point out the purchase order with family and it says it's renewable every year and pursuant to that contract they hire certain people to work on the government and it's my contention that it's a joint employer situation it's your contention but i'm still waiting to see what legal authority supports the proposition that your client was not an at will employee and so far heard none well i'd like to point you out to the family contract and i can point to specific ph if you read that contract in total and it was  that are working for stanley or c g i at the beginning of one year have to stay on the job for the entire year does it extend the one year period of employment to stanley's employees or could they put in whoever they wanted with the approval of the navy that's a very good question in reviewing that contract i didn't see those terms in there so i don't let's assume that it's not a one year contract that he was at will no i did want to point out to a ph i looked at the purchase order contract yesterday and it's those made the supplemental record and some of the terms of stanley's a contract is in there and page one  lse i believe it's page page six of the supplement to record that it would be at will unless there was an agreement between the government and stanley that it was a period of time and in this situation albeit it doesn't specifically say the employees will be hired for this period of time it does say the  but it's about five pages long five to six pages and at the part where it says at will and the period of time one year so one can say that that's a conflict in the contract the one hand it says that will in the other hand it says however if there's of certain period of time which is one year duration it can be considered when also if you wouldn't mind i'm having trouble locating the document you would like us to look at i'm go ahead i'm sorry ok i was trying to direct you to that but at any rate even though it may not specify all employees will work for one year it is our contention because there is conflicting language that  and the fact that mr hogestyn worked for as arranged support for a number of years and always had his contract renewed every year the same time in august can you also me however he was hired before them the contract and before c g i came on board and he was hired by individuals who were part of the navy because he he's a veteran the names of the that martinez was also the individual who approved people on the range it's a small group of people mr hodges the only african american there was your it's true that c g i knew that something zero is in virginia and he would come by to hawaii maybe two times a year and he would meet with roger hodges and we actually have an e mail that he sent to john sullivan to say that he's being harassed by  sergeant martinez and nothing was done about that harassment the next thing you know he's being fired and terminated and it was sergeant martinez that wrote to c g i saying that he he wanted rodney hide just terminated c g i instead of doing of complete investigation to find out what's going on with ronnie hodges and martinez because remember before them he says he's a long term employee he was doing very it's on my record on appeal page sixty eight it's an e mail to shawn sullivan thank you and he's talking about this is harassment again nothing was done he also testified i was originally done by martine is now if again we're saying this is a joint employer situation and later on of the c g i and when i did post john sullivan said he didn't write the it was martinez that wrote the p r p because he complained mr hodges did not log into a computer to complete a list of people on the range mr hodges denies that it is a genuine dispute and he says that he did in fact finish and complete the list that mr martinez wanted him to do so so at any rate there is a lot of interaction but mr hodges is on the base in county o e and his supervisor was martin opposed to mr sullivan but he would call mr sullivan to complain for example one example that is in the documents is that when martinez wanted people to wear khaki pants instead of the regular range pants he called  singling out mr hodges for example with the secret service dinner it was mr martinez not c g i who gathered the employees to have the dinner with the secret service and left mr hodges the only african american on the range that mr rogers it feel to establish through substantial specific evidence that that's explanation was actually a pretext for discrimination civil mr harkins theories at least in well a couple things wrong to want to use the verb you chose escalating is exactly right that all these concerns and the same sort of concerns that mark sheen is expressed a bit maybe a higher volume with the same thing that mocker who was the actual actually sued maker on the request to terminate astrologers they were very consistent with the complaints he received for a couple of years earlier from multiple obviously a lot louder as you said and that appears to be what ultimately caused the break there was a negative evaluation that he received in two thousand and nine that's referred to a believe in  email because the where the employment relationship where the navy or the marines aren't directly evaluating mr hodges but passing their concerns on to the contractor some of the a lot of the communications are other matters petty matters some of them the dress code whether he could be required to mow the lawn if the extent that they had to rewrite his position description or the prison trip should of all of them to deal with all the complaints that  rights were violated because he repeatedly raised safety violations and was terminated because of it so those reviews those matters are not on appeal but if you look at the second a medic complaint those are his own theories and if you look at his denials opposed to specific instances of disputes he doesn't and he denies that he was wrong about the roster and he denies that he was late he doesn't deny that he repeatedly argued that he's turned into arguments about other things so it's if you look at mr gillat mockers final e mail where he asked it wasn't it was hockey be removed not to martina's it says that his conduct is no longer acceptable to me the range chief or the range officer in and that's sergeant martinez at law so you have three different individuals who are determining that his conduct is acceptable and he said the conduct itself is not disputed i think that that what the evidence experience and that mr rogers really didn't have a lot of respect for church martina's that's there's no evidence at all of any racial discrimination of any indirect there's no one similarly situated th gave him clear warning roddy has had numerous arguments and confrontations with me in regards to what i can or cannot make him do we have discussed this in detail with  remarkably close to seven and a half is maybe the closest even spot i've ever seen graduations what the military directed them to do and that is their legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination for which there is zero dispute in the record there's no dispute that mr hodges is terminations was the military's request that the basis for  judgment does that make any difference it's not a has not conceded that they are joint and everything seemed a moron summary judgment here and we don't have an adjudication that you're not join employer  so i understand the distinction you draw but i'm not sure it speaks to the issue that's teed up in front of us this morning it doesn't change the analysis simply because under joint employer regime is only responsible for what it reasonably could have known from the other joint employer and here there's no reflection in the record that there was any racial animus so opposing counsel suggest there c j i should have investigated more thoroughly and in fact get e mails or communications from mr high just as he was being harassed by mr martinez correct and so i said i'd like to turn to that that a legit harassment complaint which is this is starting to be harassment so this complaint is not harassment on the basis of race so you know the titles have an obligation to investigate is slightly different in that matter and also shawn sullivan the c g i supervisor stated in his declaration that he did follow up on the appellant's complaints and that he did not find that there was any basis that the complaints were unfounded they were not about race gender or sexual harassment they were about workplace policies that the appellant did not agree with now turning back to the nondiscriminatory reason under c contract the military retained the unilateral right to assess c g s performance suggest professional services had to be accepted by the military c g i could only staff personnel at conejo he be at the range facility with the military's agreement  this is at the record c g i supplemental record at page twenty and the military could terminate c g i is contract if it failed to comply with any contract terms or fail to provide the military with adequate assurances of future perform when the military determined that one of c g i his employees mr hodges had contact that was just tracting from its mission of marine combat readiness training c g i responded with progressive discipline provided mr hodges with counseling and job improvement counseling but it also acknowledged the military's ultimate authority telling the range command officer don't get marker that quote you have your hand on the launch button if you feel he continues to question jealous when they removed him or did they give him other up job opportunities what happened after that they did give him other job opportunities so c g i had no discretion to keep mr hodges on that particular contract the canio he big contract contrary to the military's wishes c j had no other contract in hawaii that it could assign mr hodges to any alternative and that set the record c s c art pages thirty thirty four and forty one c g i offered mr testified in his deposition that he asked about japan but that he really wasn't looking to leave hawaii and so while c g i offered mr hodges the opportunity to find another position because mr hodges wasn't looking to leave for what  time was there between the last incident and the terminations other words what was the time span during which there he was offered other possibilities i was thinking about week we have to assume then that potential offers within c g i were proposed and considered and rejected in five to seven days i think what the record reflects is that there was a general inquiry made and that mr hodges did ask and japan was was referenced but ultimately because he did not want to leave what which is what he testified to there was no other country to assign him to so there may not have been a reason proffered no evidence that c g i terminated him because of his race or in retaliation for engaging in protected behavior because there simply is not so for that reason alone summary judgment should be a first of all c g i never offered mr hodges any other position and you can look at their letter of terminations on page seventy three of the record plaintiff's excerpts of records and see the actual termination letter it does not offer him any other jobs and he testified in this deposition and as an inspector ation he was not offered any other job it was simply a term a nation and if you look at the letter they say they do say that you're being terminated because the client requests that you be terminated now there are people time is may fifth because that's the same day mr hodges and mr stenson a caucasian coworker r s s showed up instead of one o'clock they showed up a little later because they thought they were going to start in three thirty which was their regular hours and master sergeant mightiness had been told charge of my case i'm sorry had been told that he needed to put the work hours in a schedule and mr since and they were late he then mr hart just looked at the schedule and saw that there was no date or was no time on the date pointed it out to martinez martinez got upset contacted guilt marker by e mail and all of this is in the record and said hi just as argumentative he's deny that he was late by the way there is no apology in the record for mr stenson there is a note by mr stenson that says they came in late because they did not know they were supposed to start at that time difference between want to clock in three thirty that's what started this terminations mr hodges in his declaration is john sullivan in this deposition admitted mr hodges calls sansa when to say i was not late there is no time on the schedule and we did show up when we got the car that we had to show up at the range and he said that sergeant martinez was again harassing him the next thing that happens is via e mail sergeant martinez contacts to get marker and said rodney hodges is up to his old tricks again all of this is in writing now what is the old tricks one doesn't know because mr hodges has never been late this is the first time he's been late and it's only because there was no time on the schedule so this is not a situation where he was offered other type of employment this is a situation where he was being targeted by sergeant