more your honour's they please the court and harvey sanders represent coming back to the point of the rule fifty a motion here should have been denied with respect to retaliate and claim your television claim should have gone to the jury for three reasons was one sentence they said there's absolutely no evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant buffel public schools refused to hire the plaintiff and retaliation by only a charge of discrimination that was the entire motion didn't find out what elements did you know well when did you not know i would not was certain you know the answer to that question the two witnesses who were at the interview one said they didn't recall who wrote it and one said she believed the other one who was at very close to the beginning of the year so if you look at  people who did the interview which was which were not necessarily decision makers but the point being that he was in fact hired as a as a sub and he was in fact and hiring decisions are made much later so to say that the hiring decision why this is important is because yossi charges filed on unable seventieth and the interview was on people for the plaintiff testified very clearly that the reason he filed the charge was because he thought the interview didn't go well and based on the policy the fact that the city had hired all of the physics teachers were significantly younger and two drugs so the fact that we lost on the discrimination they had the judge not granted fifty a motion we would have made an effort to prove up that retaliation claim as at best during cross examination of the city's witnesses the fact and the fact that the we should have survived fifty motion then finally the standards for fifteen motions themselves are very minimal this board is held that all you need to articulate in order to survive a fifty motion is when that decision was made and that document itself doesn't show when the just when the decision was made to document merely shows the fact that it had thirteen years of the equivalent of thirteen years worth of service to the to the district and had taught hire mr packard thirteen days before the administrative discrimination charge was actually fight these hiring these five i'm sorry  hiring decisions or hundreds that came out actually after the no hire decision when these three or four other people were fired came out in september that was long after the decision to not hire a structure was made the only evidence in this r i certainly could have could have tried to and you know in my experience when district courts make a ruling like that you know you move on from that and you take exception if you disagree with it but you're not going to convince explained you don't tell the judge e me from from making that argument here on appeal and obviously whatever testimony happened after that is irrelevant because we were no longer litigating the retaliation claim and i do think that in the summary judgment motions which had been made previously it was clear what our position was you can't say from that piece of paper that that piece of paper shows that the decision not to hire was made before the charge was filed so therefore you can't say that