issues are in terms of the evidence that the lord will require that mr tyson who now has wilson you don't dispute that at least one of the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons  so they make that they make their contention is there anything in the record took place into material dispute under rule fifty six those proffer pieces yes i because he had the same job and he was very good i think that's a little a little bit apples and oranges in the sense that i could be very adept at the use of excel but when it comes time for me to put a lot of data together and handed it on a deadline i might do so in a way that wasn't very attentive and that wasn't sufficiently prompt and so the question is given the specificity of those claims is there anything in the record that has and says ok in which occasions or i was never once late or the only time i was late was this and this the only areas that were ever pointed out to me were these type promptly fix them and myself i mean anything along the lines that actually taking  number of cases we see this is a case where actually the way the evidence is overwhelming handed well documented i'd like to return to a point that opposing counsel just mentioned at the end where she said that  occasions when johnson was confronted with marginal word he would become defensive this is not just a single individual reporting a problem that one could choose to believe or describe a different motive to maybe this calls to doesn't include a supervisor us a coworker well there are supervisors there's langley there's both of them observe both the performance issues and the demeanor problems there's a hacker who is a coworker  the work was good but he had many other people's experience including her in langley who hired this guy very recently and it wasn't so you know not everybody sees everything which is also my response to the other coworkers testimony i'm not sure which coworkers december she's talking about there are a couple but most of the coworkers say that they were not involved in the work that the one coworker did is in a different was also in testified did he seem to to do that well when subsequently she has not had performance issues but in our view that's just not enough to get there because miss alston was not privy to the work that mr johnson submitted to the supervisors and that he conducted in conjunction with america workers like mr hecker and mr jackson she was not privy to the conversations that revealed the defense even argumentative to me through the so many of these witnesses pointed to so given all of that in our view the district court got it right here there's just not enough evidence in the record to tommy's extraditions and the question i would like to talk about this what i think is the most confusing part of this case which is how did this conversion status issue arise and i'm going through the records pretty clear what happened initial crime it was for sixty days that last time june first of this particular year and jane to seventy four there is a document dated may twenty fifth so about a week before this conversion that apparently h r thought that he was going to become career conditional on june thirtieth this h r employee came to mr burke maybe as the end of the month and payroll had happened and said virtually it's urgent he si urge you to please respond as soon as possible as soon as possible as in order to process the action so the employee can perceive salary payment now you didn't say and i think this is the source of the confusion it didn't say would you like to convert him to her conditional or would you want to extend his provisional sadness that was not a choice presented to him but it clearly wasn't choice because and joy to punish to seventy seven relieved they did extend his temporary appointment for a year he didn't make it to the end of that year but that was an option i think the confusion here in the explanation is that he got this high sugar saying that he needed to cite this converting that individual to a career conditional but there was another option out there that is extending a temporary status and he didn't understand why he was getting pressured in this one direction assuming that the district court might have somewhat overstated the  he worked well and timely and didn't commit an excess of errors on any of the projects that the employer was criticizing why wasn't that alone create time and i did a high quality work and i learned and i got better and they're making that up that surely that can be enough and what about what about his response is inadequate assuming that what if mr johnson said what everybody else went home and they gave me a broom and told me you know because i'm a black man i should sweep up and he's the only person there and there are no cameras and he has to testify that's what happened  that didn't never happen i mean of course we rely on the plaintiff's testimony and have to let that go to a jury and i guess the question is what one and there may well be something different but i'm just asking for your help on what if he's saying no no i did my work w thing that you have to look to who is same things it's not just no supervisors who i can this is why same actor inference is important here because the two people who used to supervisor she fired him hired him and  burke i mean he's in the same protected class and he essentially recruited the guy and helped him to acquire we get no explanation at all from the plaintiff is why he suddenly would turn on a dime and start discriminating against another man just in appear that there is something of a pattern of the people who found him to be defensive and difficult to deal with border on black and the people who thought that he was quite agreeable and professional in his demeanor it i have much to work with i have no control obviously over the races of people who happen to be working around him but the point i that's on the performance i'm talking about the demeanor issue and rank and there also is the sort of converse demeanor issue of the supervisors who is some of the employees testified they thought supervisors talked down to him that they were belittling that they were i got the impression that i was treated differently but that easy conclusory statement that things were different for me than they were for other people and that i think those school halls were really under just unsubstantiated testimony very first thing that mr hurd communicated and it was all of the above sort of response and based on questions and answers yes depending on what they did the record needs to be clarified on his later declarations and testimonies emphasized one aspect of another one or maybe exclusively but that doesn't mean that his initial all of you by the way answer was untrue he just expanding on prior things where he said  her problems and he had professional professional competence problems and then later he said yes i personally have witnessed these things and yes i do support the supervisor too but there's nothing wrong with a manager supporting a he did a great job but is there any place where he tries to go by the specific assertions of low grade performance but the government works is offered