so take the the other name it's our position however that miss farrow was in fact meeting the legitimate expectations of the school district and had been subject to various levels of scrutiny based on complaints arising from a very racially tense atmosphere at the school district there had been teachers that had she had confronted over concerns that they were disciplining african american students in an outsized manner these teachers then went to the superintendent of the school to explain that they felt that the leadership was eroding and the morale was collapsing but these types of documented problems really didn't occur until two thousand ranks of the two teachers who were falsely accused of having sex in school there were two different instances so there was an initial instance in november of two thousand and eight in which two students of color accused to spread rumors that the two fifth grade teachers were having some sort of extramarital affair there was a second case in january two thousand and nine in which a second grade teacher allegedly hit a student of color which warranted an investigation it was after that first instance in october of two thousand and pursued me november of two thousand and eight that a meeting was set between mr farrel and the superintendent to discuss morality issues this was followed up with an e mail that later that month asking for the opportunity for the teacher who had been  treating his students of color differently to clear the air as i say though the real performance issues such as they are really only came to light in miss farrel second year at the school the two thousand and eight two thousand and nine school year were not marked by written warnings or detailed explanations for disagreements between teachers and miss farrow there was as i'm thousand and nine after miss farrel had not been afforded the opportunity to find a good or adequate mentor and in fact the matter that was assigned to her by  the superintendent was disregarding her concerns that as the african american principal of a very large white majority white student populous as well as a student or a faculty that she had a difficult time communicating with people and so it was then after that there was this instance in november two thousand and nine where miss farrel accused miss  superintendent burmeister of potentially dealing with her in an air inappropriate manner because she believed white faculty regarding whether a meeting had been scheduled but so these continued on and it was after this instance in november two thousand and nine that the superintendent burmeister and subra the system superintendent began papering miss farrel's file with letters of five or six pages taking issue with all kinds of small i would say petty potentially issues but that consultant was brought in in the prior halfway through the prior school year to try to improve her performance it wasn't just in trying to improve her performance because there were other staff and faculty that were involved in these groups but certainly communication was an issue that was sought to be improved there had been a large turnover some years prior to miss f entitled to give significant weight to well i think there are messages one you know there are a lot of other criticisms certainly are these are paid consultants however that the superintendent brought in specifically and had personal relationships with prior but as it relates to whether it then justified their belief that miss farrel was not meeting the legitimate expectations there's other evidence in the record suggesting that she was in fact meeting those legitimate expectations she had participated in some of these consulting groups to take one instance but then also had received a positive or neutral at the very least performance evaluation by the superintendent the summer before she began experiencing this additional scrutiny after confronting the superintendent over what she believed to be disparate treatment in defense council suggests that this type of scrutiny had begun in two thousand and eight when she began but really it only surfaced as soon as miss farrow began talking to staff about how to engage students in discussing racial disparities and calling into question whether the teachers themselves could play a role mis gone to the multicultural club and said we need to do a better job of counseling students outside of class about how to deal with these things so the real scrutiny about her performance concerns are about the school districts putative concerns really only later in january where a white assistant principal sheela mom for also had her contract non renewal which was the same as miss farrow and miss mob or began a white assistant principal had been placed on a performance improvement plan or action plan as had miss fair however it was mr burmeister four days after meeting with mr burr excuse me miss farrel to discuss the terms of that action plan that she recommended this non renewal and it was in a meeting on january seventh between miss farrel superintendent burmeister and the attorneys for the respective parties in which mr farrell again voiced her concerns that she was being treated differently and that  period or at different periods of time or missed membered was placed on the action plan in the early fall and soup the principle feral was placed in winter in december so there had been a lapse of time ok so placed on the action plan in the early fall given an opportunity to try to work things out and improve it in the end she was as i understand it her contract was not it months time to improve under the action plan correct that is correct and then this ferals contract was not renewed four days after the action plan that's correct and they'll be a distinction here between not rolled over and non renewed a bad effect on her career obviously she was placed on suspension administrative leave only weeks after this decision to non rollover her contract and she remained off of work without receiving any type of correspondence from the school regarding her potential re employment or reinstatement which again she never had the opportunity to try to improve her performance based on the the good morning your honors me please the court this case is ultimately all about the decision of the oak creek franklin school board to stop the automatic renewal or the automatic rollover of miss farrel's contract in january of two thousand  ten and before we get to the specific claims that she presents i think there are a couple salient facts and heater i meant be mentioned first of all the recommendation to hire miss farrel's made by dr burmeister in july of two thousand affirmed by the school board dr burmeister was also the same individual who subsequently recommended the stopping of the automatic roll over of the contract in january of two thousand ton so clearly we have the same actor in france in this case miss farrel was only employed by the district for approximately two years the second fact that's important is there's a distinction between stopping an automatic rollover in a decision to non renew somebodies contract  farrel was under a two year contract and the contract provided pursuant to chapter one hundred twenty four of those counts and statutes that in order to non renew that contract the district had certain steps it had to go through five months before the contract expired they had to provide pullin area notice they had to give her an opportunity for hearing in four months before it expired they had to provide her with final notice of non renewal now her contract went through june thirtieth of two thousand eleven so anon and new all never happened in this case with respect to miss farrel what the contract provided was that if the district didn't provide notice of the stopping of the automatic roll over a year and a half before the contract was set to expire so that was changer of two thousand and ten the contract would automatically renew for another year or so by stopping the automatic rollover it provided the district with the opportunity a year later in january of two thousand and eleven  start the non a new a process now mr good test there or indicated that that and sheila mommer it was actually not a nude that was not the case in two thousand and ten what happened was his mom bird and miss f both put on a plan of improvement now i don't believe the record indicates the date that ms bombard was put on the plan of improvement i believe it actually happened around the same time in december of two thousand and nine but both individuals were then put their contracts were the automatic rollover was stopped in january eleventh two thousand town sheila mom made improvements to her performance which resulted in the school district deciding in two thousand and eleven to allow her contract to renew they didn't start that non renewal process so she continued her contract was extended and a year later ultimately her performance again deteriorated there again provided notice of the automatic stopping of the contract and then a year after that in two thousand thirteen they provided culinary notice of the intent to now i'm going to her contract and at that point she resigned her employment so how yes let me just cut to the chase with the question here in the real issue the whole issue the whole case here whether or not the district court was correct when he determined that in weighing when he actually weighed the factors as to whether or not the various elements of the cause of action existed specifically with respect to whether there were illegitimate whether she was meeting legitimate expectations he laid out those factors that favor your client he also actually pointed to factors that were raised by the plaintiffs but it appears here that he weighed those factors himself as opposed to allowing the jury to do so so doesn't actually brought down to whether or not the district court appropriately determine that these factors as a matter of law made it impossible for miss farrel to meet the elements of the cause of action so it really comes down to whether or not you can look at all these factors and basically decide as it appears the district court the district judge did hear that he decided that when he weighed the factors that he favored your side whether rather then the fact that it appears that these are issues the fact that a jury a reasonable jury could either go either way is a that the issue that we have to decide that is the issue and the judge found fault that she felt to establish she has the burden of proof to stablish and once she was meeting the reasonable expectations of the school district and second law secondly that she could point to somebody similarly situated who was treating treated more favorably outside the protected class and she felt there was that was hopeless elements and so your position as i understand it is when the court decided that she couldn't meet the burden of establishing she was meeting the legitimate expectation based on hearsay complaints have were received his sake complaints that were received early on and when she first was appointed by different teachers there was an anonymous survey as i understand it and like in the summer before the fall when things hit the fan so to speak she had a satisfactory evaluation so i guess what i'm saying is there were factors and the question is whether those factors actually would support a reasonable jury to conclude one way of the other versus having to determine as a matter of law and that's the whole issue here a rape and certainly if there were some facts that pla she was meeting the expectations even given what was being claimed by a bad bad defense why is it that a jury question because the evidence was so overwhelming your honor we submitted affidavits of can individuals have supported t destress position that she was not meeting the expectations now you feel the initial complaints came from students and staff doctor burmeister investigator those complaints she looked into and she started having regular meetings with miss farrel in the fall of two thousand and eight which was the initial year of her contract it was in the second year this was the first year she also received complaints from ms kelsoe who was the union representative she was meeting with staff the morale within the school was terrible there were significant concerns within the school we submitted academic survived a nail file and is it just in the record by permit you of the declaration well dr burmeister didn't didn't document a lot of the concerns initially now she did bring in the outside consultant in january of two thousand not her two thousand and nine which was about or any of those are what which of those are supported and were documented contemporaneously in her personnel file but the complaints continued throughout her employment the complaints and concerns were documented  situation at the element of focus on what's in our personal cup so we have the performance review liberation performance review in june of two thousand and nine which i do not believe is satisfactory we have a goal as an objective document that was created by dr burmeister in september of two thousand nine setting for a specific action if this if the performance evaluation is not the type where there is an ultimate rating satisfactory not satisfactory you're telling me that that's not how it's done is done basically it goes through different issues are different areas in the city that you have there's a performance issue you need improvement are you ok correct correct i why isn't it juries why isn't it a determination for the jury to look at that in terms of in context with all the other circumstances they go both ways to make a determination and say it isn't that a question of fact as to whether or not she met legitimate expectations how is that a determination to be made as a matter of law because again that what with the evidence was so overwhelming i miss farrel fail to rebut all these allegations and all of the concerns that dr burmeister had they were in the performance review they were in a document called goals and objectives in september of two thousand and nine and they were part of the formal performance improvement plan that was issued in december of two thousand and nine to summer fourth of two thousand and one doesn't the jury get to make a determination based on even absence of direct evidence circumstantial evidence and inference look at both sides weigh it out and make that determination isn't that the jury's job versus the judge's job to weigh out factions in certain cases absolutely but not in this case i think the facts of this case are so compelling that the judge correctly found that she could not meet her burden of proof and i believe the decision should be affirmed the races as well as the reason set forth in our questions bear out and as the supreme court held in both reeves and anderson these types of determinations whether are properly before a jury they should not be weighed by a court and with that we would ask that this decision of the eastern district be reversed thanks ok thank you very much to both counsel