few weeks after plaintiff objected to his supervisors sexual harassment and nd the jury should determine what motivated defendant to terminate plaintiff outright right that essentially your theory has to be a kind of cats theory that it was tran who somehow persuaded the decision makers to rescind the offer that's a huge part of the argument and because tran is the only one there is any evidence new of this oppositional  communicated in some way that in to the decision makers were i guess or montez and montez with respect to getting the employment contract that he was hoping to get and divine with respect to terminating his consultants what is the evidence that trend influenced their thinking in any way let alone by persuading telling them about  the oppositional activity st of all month has is the one who made the decision to terminate the contract at the end of the sequence of events but here's the evidence that montana's new month has was on plaintiff's side when they created this position and there was a concern about a discrepancy in montana but but but montell said i want to scott and i can overlook it because we like him and we know him that was august one thousand montell as has an abrupt about face after a conversation with tran so much that month has immediately changes his mind conveys that to young and says i'm not on that side anymore and that's when the money that that's the beginning of the end for the do you agree that that would be the thing we would have to do in for that is supposed transit you know i think young has a good point and the trend was motivated to say that because young should i stand by what i said or maybe she has a point and trans as yeah i think you know i think she was right in that if he lacks credibility he should be fired and that's not really what trent thinks  that to montana's and month as is persuaded you know you think you're right young was probably right goes back still without knowing anything about the oppositional activity and tells young i agree with you now if trans anything to montana's that was negative it was negative the jury can draw the inference that it was because plaintiff had objected to transects harassment and now you're not even talking really about the jury at this point you're just talking about a prime aphasia case sarette well the fact i find that one really fact finder can draw the inference and we have a de minimus standard on the prime official case right and so you have a very tight sequence of events about one month when everything happens yes but you're not disputing that even if you have a crim that the employer not only asserts that he was legitimate reasons to take adverse action against the really what we're talking about is the pretext finding we have pretext to the district court didn't address pretext but we have pretext what's the evidence of discrimination in addition to the caps for the vicar staff influence you have disparate treatment you have other candidates other people working for the museum who also had discrepancies and they were not denied their positions plaintiff was even though young told the plaintiff on september september you get a letter from long island university that says you have enough credits to graduate you'll be ok i'm a did that he comes back and says here's my letter and young according to ahmed says ok you're clear you're ok he still doesn't get the job he still gets fired so so the discrepancy falls away based on the plainest testimony about what happened when he followed through on young's direction young and we can draw an adverse inference from the fact that young originally said i would just get the credits but later changed her position well it was months has he made that whatever was going through young's mind when she changed her mind in the end it was eye pretext there's a lot here the record is huge there's a lot here about what people said what people intended but it ultimately boils down to that phone call and i think you know since the plaintiff was not a party to that call you can still draw the inference that tr infected the process because why else would mountains change his mind so quickly when he was clearly on plan aside and they created the position for the plaintiff not too long before that thank you ignore the undisputed evidence and instead make inferences that have no basis whatsoever the district court top we held that speculation is not enough the district court also probably held that  intervenor vents rebut any inference of causation here there's no dispute that the museum's job offer was conditional i'm passing a background check there's no dispute that haven't a bachelor's degree was about other people who made misrepresentations my my impression was that your position is that there are lots of people who are similarly situated who are turned down but i think  when the museum has a reason to believe that a candidate willfully made a false statement they don't move forward so there are examples of other candidates who there are discrepancies beach to them about it with the willful word that that is correct for example someone walked in their graduation so they've put they graduated in may but they actually didn't get a diploma until september that type of discrepancy  plaintiffs never receive a degree age are even reached out to the university are you put that allege that he received an associate's degree in computer science and i you confirm that they have never awarded an to prevail here this court has said a plaintive must produce evidence that advise action were not have occurred in the absence of a retaliatory motive instead of pointing to any evidence because he cannot plaint does not explain a char h r never had a conversation with tran and plaintive doesn't allege that they did a chart independently reached out to the university and based on that conversation based on the background check and based on age our conversation with ahmed stated in the email that time i meant to be credible and in those situations the museum we're candidates there's just simply no way that thing to get around the discrepancies on his educational background point of his fail to establish causation with no causation there's no primary she case of one thing that's really key here is so we have two issues we have that often rescinded and we also have that the contract was terminated there's a seventeen day gap between these two so what point is x in the court to believe i the offer was rescinded for retaliatory motives but they still allowed him to work there for seventeen more days and they venn term in his contract for the same retaliatory motives seventeen days that's just not reasonable or jury would not infer that and for those reasons if you're honest or having questions we respectfully request that you are firm the district court's well reasoned opinion of came in with the september th letter that said he had enough credits she said this is fine your cool language to that effect so they were willing to overlook it so whatever they have as a paper credential young  excepted whatever you had to say about plaintiff's educational background exceptions to the general policy our brief page eighty nine has five examples of people who had comparable discrepancies again summary judgment the similarly situated the question is well their errors were not willful they were they were mistaken and it wasn't intentional how do you distinguish between a willful mistake at a negligent mistake or a good faith mistake on a summary judgment motion especially when plaintiff did everything he could to go back to school to find out what happened he did what young told him to do and he came back with a letter that young wanted him to have so when we hear there's no way to get around the discrepancies there is a way to get around the discrepancies young was willing to overlook the discrepanc page to sixty seven quote she said it was sufficient that you had the requirements but not necessarily a good degree answer yes that's exactly correct we're talking about young here quote if she told me to provide the associates i would have paid the bill and provided the associates the only reason you're inferring took place between fran and london is that disputed fact as to whether young changed her mind early on when they st had the discrepancy young had not ruled out hiring a plaintiff right but you we before are talking about inferring that trend influenced montanus in the interval between the conversation between month as the st and nd conversation between month as in young so what accounts for young changing her mind with tran and so the discrepancy about young i'm not sure of that matters if she changed her mind she changed her mind is there any indication that tran had some interaction with young before the conversation with month as were month as drones around i were not aware of any conversation with young but there's something very irregular about this process is my point again de minimus standard once plane is subject to the harassment everything falls apart for him and he does what they want and he still doesn't get it other people have similar discrepancies muntasser has this about face that nobody seems to be able to explain although there is an inference to be drawn and young apparently on behalf of h r jury could assume that she is speaking on behalf of the museum about what they're willing to accept if there's a candidate that they want and it's still not good enough so what's going on here and then we know that montana's at the very end when he was fired plaintiff sends an e mail you know what's going on i did everything you want i'm waiting c seat on the e mail he comes running out of his office two seconds after plaintiff hits send yelling at the plaintiff what's that about so and then they decide well the plaintiff is a hothead and he can't work here because he has access