docket it doesn't mean we have more time  way to right county there was a favorable verdict with a jury found retaliation it was originally discrimination and retaliation during the trial elected to just pursue the retaliation claim of emily's with the same there is a claim was not decided at trial because it's not for a jury to decide it is for the judge and it was good to be reserved for a later date as it was front pay and attorney's  really motional distress or anguish or other damage that flows from what united way worldwide good there's still separate stress anguish and lingering effects that flow from united way worldwide do wrong but they participated in the terminations of mr sharon or knew about it had the power to stop that the paragraphs where we're where the allegations would be against united way worldwide as to the things that you know united way worldwide did wrong yes and it says things like united way worldwide says it's shocked so obviously united way worldwide couldn't have said it shocked i guess that it officer or a representative an employee or an agent or someone but it's not even identified who says that it shocked here right it is this referring back to the conversations in paragraph four they might have with the folks at united way worldwide well she did have far conversations about a year earlier not months earlier along with another executive who's african american  but i think the conversation here on in february of two thousand and seventeen was picking back up and saying yeah it was a continuation of what was happening there and also there have been violations  opposed to investigate the executive vice president's claims but they took the commission sharod the vice president off the investigation had independent investigator investigated she's now investigating another claim and sees that she is being retaliated against by the c e o to be for doing standing up and arguing for the of us a and the investigation way in forces their members to follow the law specifically even mentioning discrimination law picks up the phone and ask for help facts that allow a plausible claim to rise sufficient even circumstantial to do that for this court to draw an inference that there is liability and that to be done through circumstantial evidence by just showing the paragraphs and including those my colleague has as pointed out it almost seems to be supportive of united way worldwide nonparticipation any determination their concern complied with and then you get to this paragraph that almost seems to go on eighty saying they somehow participated and when something happens i mean basically what you're briefing is saying we need to scot free but when something happens that that person feels is wrong of the argument made is more due and that is that they would have been concerned about discrimination that they would not have played a role and it's really nothing in here but tell me otherwise that would indicate that you have the start of a claim against you got me doug so my answer would be as we have a prima facia place which is all that needs to be pled so there's no dispute or there's direct evidence or direct pleading that mrs ron reported violations  not plausibility or probability that's that's right and so the question is whether or not those other facts raise it from a level of not just possibility to plausibility when you have an entity that has control and authority and says it will act and in your favor and then you have a report and then you have them saying we are going to look intimate that is more than just possibility that's a plausible argument that they didn't look into it that they did communicate and so don't see anything in here that alleges communications they don't do not participation but but you know i mean there's no allegation in one hundred and twenty four to one hundred and twenty eight that united way worldwide made i mean suppose you added a paragraph in here in the complaint one hundred and twenty five a it's not here that it said and as soon as they hung up the phone with my client phone calls were made on information and belief now that would be hard right because there's no there's nothing in here to suggest that phone calls were made or participation was had but it's obvious to me that that would also satisfy weight but that even that isn't here and so it's another bridge it strikes me that you're asking us to take to infer what happened it's not alleged this is not a situation where there was no phone call no commitment to look into the matter no previous involvement by united way worldwide this is a situation where all of this there and they this day have not denied they haven't had to follow the answer to deny and we specifically said discovery on the use and they refused to answer the discovery  realize we're running out of time so i'm looking at the text of sections section four hundred and ten and it's a ten i'm sorry five and party thank you it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge fine suspend expelled discipline or discriminate but i soon that the allegation against you either is just a mere speculation a possibility and i'm just we're just throwing it to the wind or there actually are facts that would show their involvement and they need to respond and say we were involved or we weren't and here's our documents showing good morning michael royal and russell chapman on the have a fairly united way worldwide and today i'm going to speak to the issues relating to night in eighty one primarily mr chapman is going to speak to the issues relating to the risks of five thousand claims and if i could begin by simply addressing rebutting one thing that opposing counsel said he had called united way worldwide the parent company to united way t county and that's absolutely incorrect the united way worldwide is a nonprofit charitable organization that is separately incorporated from the united way to downey i won't belabor the facts is that the panel is already discerned there is little to no indication that united way worldwide had any role whatsoever in this rod's employment there's no allegations in implicit united way worldwide hired her had anything to do the supervising her had any role in the day to day activities of anyone at terri county when you look to the allegations as to her and or united way old wives involvement in the mr claims there's no claims that have been pled or no allegations and stated that united way worldwide had any involvement it was terror county that that deleted their pension plan it was te county that enact some sort of new arista plan for both the executives and employees it was tearing townie to him that the complaints are directed that the plan was discriminatory or was otherwise being violated and it was tearing county that made least firm basis for saying there is communication between you and karen county would you agree with that and is that inference i'm asking you to say where that takes us but isn't that inference there i would disagree with your honor respect the communication side there's nothing in the complaint that i read as a communication between terry county and the you debbie debbie people other than this rod herself making these allegations that county are you saying the absence of any explicit allegation to that effect is the problem or what's the real difficulty even with that i don't yes exactly when you look to the cause of action the nine hundred and eighty one discrimination claim or  allegations in the complaint when you see communications to worldwide are that these allegations of what was happening at tara county and again there is no indicia of animists she didn't get any sort of negative feedback from worldwide to the contrary she found a very sympathetic ear with a person that purportedly according to the pleadings said i'm shocked to hear that you know they they said we want to look into this they indicated nothing but clear in the case law that they couldn't even come close to proving joined element and i think that's why we don't see a title seven case in this particular petition and so when you push forward again without any sort of inference that world wide had any racial when member organizations such as united way turn county flyleaf the law states that are united way worldwide can remove the head of the organization i see that's the c e o maybe there's a maybe there's a president or something else remove the membership of the organization in terminate the license of the brand is that true we have to take the allegations is true for the purpose of these proceeding your honor so and so what makes it sound like there's a different sort of this going back to the very w trademark to a local affiliate such as a terror county and in order to protect their trademarks and the value of their brand and they reserve very limited rights but again even assuming that that is true that they have a right to remove the c e o or whoever it is of the find something that would require that or merit there's still nothing in here in the talks about that they have a right to come in and have any sort of day to day actual control over the work force and determining the c e o yes and i apologise don't understand the question i thought the point of judge all those questions maybe i missed it was that world wide could come in and terminate the director or the head of  just to protect the brand and they authorized that degree of control and so if world wide knew that the a person in charge at terran county had racially discriminated or done other acts the control or direct inference that there was activity towards the plaintiff in this case misra herself and so whether or not united way worldwide had the ability to terminate the c e o for some activities i would argue as separate apart from the issue of whether they actually had any sort of involvement in this after the jury's verdict in mr odds favor against united way to recount did you do you take any action against the local us now a class of persons by definition is not all of the persons in the universe argument is basically based on the fact that unlike section one thousand and one and some and many question the real question for this court is accepting the premise that men well held that only some employers are proper party defendant in the risk of section five  that means that some parties are not and the question is where do you draw the line our position is you draw the line in terms of those relationships so for example in this case  to selecting screening appointing or replacing investment or monitoring investment managers of respect to that point it just wasn't the united way  employee can go from one employer to another and still participate in the same plan and attains your seniority and credits and so on in that same plan the employer signed on to the plan they effectively adopt the plan as a participating employer and they contribute to that plan so that union plans sponsor and there are cases where the union plan sponsors have been held liable under a recess section five  there two or three cases like that and one example given in one of the cases was where a union with us with a closed shop agreement with exclusive shop agreement with an employer  but our nd argument is that there's no there's no evidence of specific intent to discriminate in this case on the part of the united way worldwide in fact as annoyance anger or anything else that would incident to discriminate but beyond that again and this is related to the argument regarding a proper party united way rule why would it have new motive under the case law to discriminate on the and again section five hundred and ten dollars require specific intent does not have to be the only motive for the action but it does require specific intent to discriminate on the basis of or is a section five hundred and ten dollars however the defendant must have some of the tiriel financial business or other interest to protect related to the plan most of the cases deal with and there sided in the brief but the cases deal with interference with benefit claims and the cases holder where the employer does don't really have there's really no substantial financial impact on the employer as a result of the loss of then if it's then there can be no realistic motive for the employer to have interfered with the employee's benefits of that same theory we argue holds true on the on the participation clause of a reception five hundred and ten that where the employer has no interest in what happens no material interest and no there can be no material consequences to the employer based on the complaints that are being led then there is no realistic motive that the employee could have had to interfere with the  retaliation now of course is total seven even the statute in retaliation statute under title seven says may not retaliate by discriminating so discrimination is retaliation bunyan in terms of the