and three employment discrimination claims was not warranted because the judge applied a standard of wrong standard interrupt just for a nd why is this case called female port authority  officer with a number as opposed to just her name she agrees to the use of her name it's in the record and i mean there's nothing to be hidden here there's a presumption of open records her name is in various parts of the appendix she agreed that she could proceed under her name i don't understand why this is going forward under a pseudonym initially urana mr joseph mary made that decision to use the female port authority versus was there any discussion about whether or not the real name ought to be used judge my understanding have any issue with the use of the female port authority but yes she ultimately agreed that the use of a name could eventually be used and was in the deposition jarana ok appellant demonstrated sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff was unlawfully terminated because the port authority defend it didn't apply a uniform standard in its policies when it permitted or favorite to male p p o s probationary police offices small and quirk to remain on the job when they were found to have misconduct lied obstructed an investigation and  didn't and withdrawn sorry when they got suspended they didn't get fired right correct and they had a they had a thirty day rip they actually received favorable treatment in regard was at least according to what's been put forward by the port authority is that they fessed up to their lack of candor and your client didn't write well actually that's what the port authority has put forward with a number of other pretextual reasons why she court actually said that small if the theory came clean was actually after his interviews ended what ended when he was actually given a th interview the miss how it wasn't given a th interview she wasn't given a subsequent interview so the district court found that actually he did not come clean at the time at the same standard that was applied to ms howard is there any evidence at all that the terminations of this howard was on the basis of her sax yes you're on to tell me what that is so there was a three month investigation to conduct that occurred one night when the graduates and academy staff had gone out after that there was allegations of wrongdoing that evening the port authority police integrity unit and its inspector general's office did a three month investigation thousands of hours over one hundred interviews but what indication is there that they treated her more harshly because she is on because  explanation for yes sure she wasn't initially listed among those who were going to be just dismissed and then she was dismissed that's what you're saying yes your honor you have nothing else or there's nothing else head of this investigation when he deposed one of the p p o s there was some colloquy back and forth and his answer to that female p p o was you're a woman you figure it out we also have in his deposition that this outward no we do not your honor but we also have asked him in his deposition based on that statement to another female p p o if he's ever made any comments that were about sex race national origin religion that were not either descriptive or identification and he said i'm sure i am so the head of the investigation who dunnit degnan relied on has been found to make what we say discriminatory comments intentional comments to females and the fact that the evidence in this case are there are s officers the same lying and not being forthright couldn't respond jury really conclude that they fired her because she was a woman yes your honor because these cases don't have the smoking gun i mean this court held in florida that the employee is motives you know not really the choice of words is what plays a hand and what's on point is the court said the semantic sleight of hand is not of the facts it's a distraction and i understand that but often institution but there's nothing in the record about any of that right right because this pertains to one individual and in regard to the you know argument that an overall on the side can you stick attitude at the port is not enough to show discrimination toward this one female now unless there was something more than just reeves well opposition that's a question for the jury and on summary judgment we didn't get to go to the jury because a jury could determine the falsity of the statements by the port authority the pretextual reasons the changes in the pretextual reasons to show that there was intentional discrimination because as the supreme court said there's no smoking gun are you are you still lying on the other  you have like i'm who skull as a compact yes are you still relying on him yes you're on a the reason being is husky always named in the report to having obstructed the investigation and made comments about  evidence and it goes to the essence of the report that ms howe it wasn't overlooked this wasn't i mean a simple she was left off the end of the report that shows that there are other people in the report that may have had conduct that didn't raise the level of misconduct and weren't court my name is kathleen miller and i'm here on behalf of the defendants the port authority of new york in new jersey chairman john degnan who is now formally chairman john degnan and retired superintendent michael the only issue before this court is a very narrow one it's a title seven issue and i submit to this court that there is no nine hundred and eighty three dollars claim here although the elements for analysis under title seven for eighty three dollars for discriminatory disparate treatment arising out of plate ifs terminations plaintiff was terminated because she was found to have stonewalled and lied during an official investigation the two guys well your honor we do disagree with the lower court's analysis as to whether they are compared to ours both quirke and small recant during the course of their interview clarke initially both acknowledge that he saw ryan being ejected from the bar he only fenced with the investigators in terms of what he knew about the reason for his being investigated but within a very short period of questioning by lieutenant mcgovern he admitted that when he went up to the women the women told him that ryan had touched their breast and he apologized to the women bought them a round of drinks there is no other evidence that he was they needed that another round of very well i think he was attempting to apologize your honor the only other question about whether he was fully candid arises with respect to police officer ken elise a testimony that the following day she was in a room with quinton montero clark and oman and ryan admitted that he was ejected for touching the women suppressed none of the other individuals said they were all interviewed by say the p r you police investigation unit none of the other individuals said that they heard brian make that statement and we really don't know that they did hear ryan make that statement so there's no evidence that that quirk lied and any other time and he was very candid with the police officers when they pressured him to tell the truth about what he learned about the reason ryan was ejected mishap would never recant she stuck to her or him and i don't throughout the investigation she stuck to those arguments your honor the one that didn't recant goal that's correct small again can be distinguished small initially came in and told the police officers and i disagree with counsel as to what transpired during his investigation if the court looks at the record you will see that small initially told the police officers that he had deleted his group chat from his phone before right before his interview but that that there was nothing in the group chat that had to do with the texas arizona investigation and that there were no photos on it and there was nothing that was derogatory that was untrue and he and before he finished his interview he disk he gave them his  and they were asking questions about it they were asking questions about these text it wasn't after the interview ended that he disclosed the text it's during the interview and it's right in the record it was after the interview that he agreed that he would send them snapshots of those same text and those and they saw in the in the text there were two photographs which they later brought and it's in the i g report they later brought him back as a subject not as a witness but as a subject to find out about the two photographs one of him sitting on a jersey barrier looking to shovel which he had benefit as having been taken well after the party when he came back to new york to go to a diner and then there was a picture of a woman disrobing which she had then a fight is coming and this is all in the record in the in the nd transcript of his subsequent interview disrobing at a party in wildwood new jersey three years before which he thought was amusing and he included in the text but it had nothing to do with the texas arizona party so small pretty much came clean whereas the plaintiff did not she told the investigator she didn't know where she was in the bar she couldn't remember who was in the bar with her even though just before her interview she'd been shown a video clip that showed her in the bar with tennis and she couldn't remember anything about it until they reach showed her the same clip during her interview where she was able to identify two people she said that right before she came into her interview she was told by somebody in the waiting area in the gym that the fighting th group chat that she was on while she was in the academy had been deleted and then she told the officer she couldn't remember even though it occurred moments before who told her that initially she said it was novello but then at the end of her interview she told mcgovern it wasn't novello and she couldn't remember who it was and she couldn't remember whether it was in the gym or look at the west the port authorities if you get beyond that and you look was the port authorities reason for terminating her a pretext or a reason she can't show that it was there is no there is no intuitively they just trained her they spent a lot of money training her for twenty four weeks at the academy she was one month out of the academy when this  and it was only in november that they decided to terminate her for lying in stonewalling there's no evidence of intent to discriminate that reason that they gave for terminating her is a good and valid reason integrity honesty and forthrightness are weapon but if that is the standard applied to women but not applied to man then that would be enough to get to a jury right it would be your honor except that the men in this case were not consistently stonewalling or lie and all written similarly situated that seems to me really what you're relying on right and i am relying on that because if you go beyond it the i g report and this court is entitle to do that and you look at the interviews between the i g his office and the three police officers probationary police officers quirke ball and the plaintiff they're readily distinguishable even at the end of her interview plaintiff was asked did you walk out of the bar or were you carried out she answered i don't know and they had warned her through out her interview that they were having trouble with the number of i don't recall i don't recall and they allowed her to go meet with the p b s representatives during her interview and when she came back she persisted but even if we were to conclude that they were similar situation because because the reason that they gave her terminations namely that she was lied consistently and stonewalled throughout her interview is a nondiscriminatory reason for her terminations as a probationary police officer and there is no evidence there's no evidence of an intent to discriminate and no council mentioned a remark that he said lieutenant governor made to another police officer it's not part of this record i don't know that i would agree that he made that remark but there's certainly no evidence in this record of anybody's intent to discriminate and as i said it's counterintuitive that the port authority would invest all the time and money to train this woman as a police officer to turn around before she'd hardly worked as a police officer in terminator because she was a woman thank you thank you your honor three minutes for thank you rhonda the lower court actually found and quote reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintive it would not be a reasonable for a jury to find that the plaintiff was similarly situated in all material aspects to male p p o s small and quirk this issue is clear they were p p o s the male p p o s got favorable treatment for misconduct the importances the report we can't tell the truth before it was over that's what counsel just told us actually that's in comparing the situations the court found that small did not come around until his th interview so when the interview was concluded for the p p o they actually gave small the right to have a union rep at a th interview where howard never had that option he was treated favorable he got less and less hostile to treatment and the key here is that the report itself they keep discrediting the report saying it's an oversight and oversight the manpower the power that went into that report was three months investigation it had attorneys working on it it had the inspector general working on it and had missed a day and who how do you respond to the argument that why would the port authority want to fire her because she was a home and after having trained her for twenty four weeks because it goes to timothy mcgovern's our understanding from his comments of his perception and differences between males and females maybe they didn't like the way that she was drunk that night she had a drink that night or maybe they didn't like the way that she had answered but knowledge that but not to the right not that we believe that's a jury question and not to the right with the port authority conclusively concluded that these p p o s lied it's important that during this is how mr howard's interview she actually stopped and asked to investigat martinez and felt like they were lying to her they were trying to trick her so at that point she wasn't sure of the truth of this of the questions being asked of her so if she didn't answer the specific question her response was i don't recall and th that report that the october th report it was vetted for weeks beforehand it was actually stated by the attorney general the inspector general i'm sorry and the acting inspector general that it has to be absolutely accurate and it is absolutely accurate when it was issued and signed and it wasn't till after the case was brought in the lower court that the port authority started coming up with all these different reasons and that in itself should tell the court it's a sleight of hand from ship shifting she lied there's no finding of lying she