age and discrimination one act case and deals with that school teacher who are all her life has has worked as a as such and she she at that time the facts took place she was teaching a special ed course on the pathways program of activity was robinson school this is this is particularly important in light of the facts immediate supervisor who is who i believe forget her name right now but she is the she was director of my mind there are you sorry she was eod at that particular time she was director of the pathways wanted to control the classroom atmosphere stood up and i don't want to just show that they were difference between because of their age yes these you know what's the evidence that the other people that it was just young all the younger people got to trainings or all the younger people got turned it into the younger people got just whatever the rd like and that h they were all similarly situated with her in every respect but age you know where the boys who got them you know they're all the employees that we did you identify with the trainings were you know they were your basically professional seminars that took place outside of the island and does your name number give dates for them or identify you got to go watch might seem to be your best claim that her employers as a condition of her employment forced her to go to a psychiatric house that's why as an honor mcdonnell douglas well it may be that that would make out a prima fashioned case of discrimination rd other co employees you know that was not done the direct threat analysis which she was not a direct threat point ok this is question whether it was discrimination based on her disability or whether it was a response to one argument i guess you're going to make is that even if they conditioned your employment ongoing it's not an adverse action so when we didn't agree with that i take it implicit in the argument you're making to judge dyke is the argument that they were doing it because it was because she was disabled you know it was a reasonable reaction to this and how does that fit it how does that fit into the mcdonnell douglas increase so we would have they regard her as disabled because of the breakdown they intervals that seems to merge with the regarded her is disabled usually the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason has nothing to do with disability what you're saying is the reason they acted i'm not saying you're wrong is just the puzzle the case preserved the reason they acted is that they regarded her is discriminatory reason is that she had a trooper a nervous breakdown she didn't have in addition she didn't have to school didn't have anybody who could come and get her because it is on the record and it is undisputed that they contacted her emergency contact because that would be the next reasonable step you're having somebody that has a problem at work you say well this person can't take care of themselves let's contact their emergency contacts to come and get them that is a reasonable response and it's on the record that is what robinson did robin contacts then answered the phone and said i'm sorry i'm not available to help her she didn't have any other family or friends at school that is undisputed so what is what is the school to do th next step which is also undisputed robinson calls the throttles and they said this is we have the situation of his journals that come and bring her in so that is what that is what the school did in terms of the decision of admitting her to the did was take her to the hospital after he had called the hospital explained the situation and they told her they told him bring her here so we can evaluate her that is what they did now to say that the robinson regarded disabled meant merely for taking her to a psychiatric hospital open the dangerous precedent that would actually i think inhibit employers from even calling nine hundred and eleven for example because the whole nine hundred and eleven then you're liable discrimination it was a reasonable response to the situation and there is no no evidence that taking her to cover stand it was neither was arbitrary or was was pretextual there is no evidence that robinson didn't believe its own reasons for taking her to capistrano which is after all the pretext analysis is whether the employer believed this own reasons that is the focus on projects and she hasn't established any record now there any other questions on that point i would like to go to to the issue that the trainings that that were raised by judge karen i think it's important to establish that she was provided trainings with in puerto rico so her dispute is or her issue is that she was not provided training outside of puerto rico but the judge barnes questions there is no record of evidence as to which trainings were not provided their contents their location the dates or how not taking her to these training somehow adversely impacted her employment for the st time for the support she alleges that they somehow affected her employment prospects but allegation on their part in fact what was the test she says she does she says she says she doesn't know what the other teachers schedule is she doesn't point to specific teachers which supposedly had were required to turn in grades manually and in fact the truth is that these other younger teachers that she alleges had less periods in a prep period it's a period in which you don't have to teach a class if you have more time for administrative tasks she had more prep period than any of the other teachers she can point out so she had more time to even assuming that these were this is somehow going st employment after she had more time to take care of these tasks than the younger employees so that which further action in which she can anchor her age discrimination when in fact during her trip that position testimony she questioned as to the basis for her age discrimination quite what she says is teachers were treated differently not because of her age but they were supposedly friends with money that it let you well i mean even if that's true how is that ages commission it could be somehow nepotism it could be cronyism as this court has had before it but that doesn't mean it's discriminatory because of her