yes why don't you just go ahead and do that especially in oral argument at the district court was the court's reference to discrimination gender discrimination that was in this case this case was retaliation we did not have evidence of discrimination gender discrimination we only had evidence of retaliation mr clark had specific training on zero tolerance he was an executive she also had an obligation to follow that and when the people under her were being harassed insulted i think the record is clear on that she did what she had an obligation to do she did it unfortunately the as the record shows her supervisor only got a day off work that was not fired and no no let me explain there is in the apple e an argument or a point that it's occurred in the fall of ninety seven so you had an overlapping you don't simply one big corporation takes over another on one day and now it was a gradual the spring of ninety eight but they were not the m c i had actually started the acquisition in the fall of ninety seven and i don't think that we've got anything contrary to that during this overlap period if you want to call it that he continued what he was doing what it clark clark did the same thing she was observing zero tolerance i may save that for the last two minutes because they'd have to refer to the three but let me point out there are brief attempts to show the connection one after another there wasn't just this mr  stable even mr testify and that's in the record that her problem was only with roth and stable stables continued on even after i guess  rob was finally terminated after quite a few months after and see i took over this noble thing that i wanted to point out that can get lost is the argument that app makes that there was a transfer request by clark logically and of course we don't agree with that the reason why is that she requested this transfer and in june of ninety eight then why on july second of ninety eight within days is she filing d f b a she'd have no reason to there's another thing too she's given three months to ramp up because now she's been transferred demoted whatever you want to call it three months to learn this new thing now she's transferred in june by the end of july now they the so called investigation came in inconclusive like money was somehow just acquired by that shouldn't have been by one or  more subordinates they had an investigation it's inconclusive but what we have three years later her supervisor testif on the dollar if she were to prevail is that the point right and the bankruptcy court will now adjudicate whether or not there's any valley to her i understand that but that's different from adjudicating whether she actually has anything that's worth anything i will add that other districts including the tenth district under the same argument and i matter an appeal dismissed it pursuant to the same argument i don't have i don't have the case number for that particular case but if plaintiffs  really have this claim continue in this court when when we notified the court of the bankruptcy and the state and the court instituted the state plans then had a mechanism to go to the bankruptcy court and seek a motion for relief from the state and actually present a claim bankruptcy court and say hey i have a claim that is now pending before the ninth circuit it's been fully briefed in front of the ninth circuit i think it should still be heard in the ninth circuit she had that opportunity there is such a mechanism under section i believe it's three twenty four  order could have gone to the bankruptcy court and asked for some sort of relief thanks that has not done any of that so therefore there is there should be nothing pending in front of this court on that ground plaintiff could have taken action to have this continue in merits the fact is there's absolutely no evidence of any retaliatory motive and there's no evidence of any causal connection between any adverse employment action and mr clarke's complaint about harassment or whether it's i want to say that it is disciplinary for the conduct previously that was the suspension and the training and it required requirement to apologize in any event after reports of the investigation of overpayment into commissions the company of course has to investigate the overpayment of commissions it's inconclusive as to whether or not ms clark had knowledge not just the plans for any overpayment of communications commission because there's no evidence to support that she is disciplined however because she was confrontational and difficult through the investigation process she did not cooperate with the investigators and streams back demonstrates that she was angry at them for the investigation and any accusations resulting in she there reorganizing her departments her department ultimately gets her off gets grouped into under the fresno's territory she had previously worked in commercial sales is no longer going to be a manager of commercial sales in that area  talks to the new person who's in charge of telecom she expressed an interest in telecom and he relied on that whether she wanted the demotion or didn't want to that's what she expressed to him and that's what she relies on when making the transfer decision he had no knowledge of any prior complaints h to perform yes she's given three months to ramp up she does nothing in terms of making her quota ever even after the three months she was initially given some sort of performance outline about a month and a half after she starts because everybody else in the department there's no evidence in the record on that issue and i think she was making her quarters and so then after about eight months of trying to help her improve trying to get her suggestions telling her where she can go  to meet her quotas and ultimately terminated for failure to meet her quotas and there's no actually no evidence in the record indeed counsel pointed to none of any retaliatory motives for any of these actions thank you thank you statement attributed to mr roth mr ross comments obviously don't need to be repeated however the last thing he did say w and this was in december of ninety seven after am see i had already acquired the company he says to staples who was upper management that parker needs to actually the it's sort of the banner of our appeal is finally in december of ninety eight if this e mail m c i e mail which says quote on the training this is referring to clark i would continue with that as if you are supporting her in wanting her to succeed now this isn't the center of ninety eight why is she still in training one of the reasons is she didn't have any