en for the plaintiff appellant charlie mcavoy this court should reverse the district court's decision granting summary judgment to defendant in this case because it is contrary to controlling precedent from the supreme court and decisions from this court and because the evidence on the record is more than sufficient to support a finding by a jury that defendant discriminated against plaintiff because of her age well plaintiff held the position of director defendant never communicated to plaintiff that her performance was deficient in any way but replace testimony by defendant's own witnesses defendant also made numerous statements from which a jury could find age bias and age stereotyping which the district court erred by not relying upon the supreme court's decision in reeves and numerous decisions by this court make clear that the truth or falsity of an employer's explanation is not just an issue that matters there is a critical issue when as in this case there is evidence that employers explanation is demonstrably false in unworthy of belief reeves makes clear that it is permissible for the jury to infer discrimination from the falsity of an employer's explanation and evidence that employers explanation is not worthy of credence is probity of discrimination that is a principle which is fundamental to the adjudication of not only discrimination claims based on age but for all employment discrimination statutes including for example claims of discrimination based on disability race gender in religion in fact in another one of this court cases sans the rice this court reversed and remanded because the district court indicated that the truth or falsity of the employer's explanation was immaterial the district court erred in this case by applying some language from this court's decision in macpherson in a way which is directly contrary to reeves and many other decisions by this court that we that is present in this case that language from this court's decision and pearson cannot be applied to cases such as this when there is substantial proof of pretext and false statements if that language from experience than could be applied to cases such as this  reads incentivize every employer to offer false explanations because they could still obtain summary judgment by argument by arguing that it does not matter that their explanation was demonstrably false because they simply believed all the false things that they s so in addition to the replacement by somebody substantially younger in addition to the substantial record evidence that the defendant witnesses made false statements from which the jury could infer discrimination there's also a substantial record of statements by the defendant and one of the principal decision makers that are reflective of age bias and age stereotyping and that's addressed in the briefing of pages forty five to fifty in our briefs and pages twenty five to twenty six of the reply but i'll go through some of that here in particular since it's a concern of the court so as we indicated dr williams made statements characterizing the plaintiff and the program under her directorship as traditional backward looking th century there were statements by the defendant in this commission on human rights and opportunities filing and which was repeated in the briefing to the district court and i believe also in the defendant's brief to this court saying statutes well i think and this court and some of its opinions that we have cited in the briefing and recognize that there are certain false beliefs or assumptions or stereotypes about people are relating to their age but that changes in the program and that's consistent with a false assumption a stereotype about older people that they're opposed to change or to new things and it's critical in this case that not only were these things said that they were that were stereotypical and reflected age bias about people because of their age but they're also not true and so the false statements are not only pretextual because they're false they're pretextual and the pretextual statements in themselves compound  basis in fact when asked to explain how the program or how dr mcavoy directorship of the program was traditional or backward looking dr williams offered these false assertions that are decision made to not continue her and she was in no different position than any at will employee who doesn't have a legal entitlement or contract to a right to continue in a position but nevertheless if they're removed and replaced by somebody despite the absence of a legal entitlement to continue at will employees you know can still claim discrimination with respect to the administration of their replacement this was an issue that was briefed or run to university standards and is cheating the goals of the university ones are i'm having trouble following your logic that the comments directed at a program is is indicative of criticism of the program as opposed to her well look you're on to a couple things about that one i think that the statements by dr williams that we keyed in on are not all just about the program some of them are about her and wants but i think that he said that she was traditional  she was rigid in opposition to changing the program and it's critical here that we're not conceding the fact that these were legitimate concerns about how the program is one run these are things that were completely manufactured out  whole cloth after the fact dr williams for instance had criticisms about the programs krikalev there was no curriculum it wasn't a major it wasn't a minor it wasn't a concentration it wasn't a degree program it was a law school and by using  do but you know why is calling it a curriculum a lot because he's saying he's making a statement that was demonstrably false he was saying that the curriculum  a focus on corporate and criminal law when there was no curriculum had no basis in fact and it was never raised previously at any point in the case prior to his deposition i think that what happened was he was mcavoy and the program traditional reflective of an age stereotype in an age bias and when asked to explain what that was he just had to come up with things on the fly at a deposition and he made statements that were untrue and had no basis in but that would also be untrue and so the record evidence that submitted to the court relating to what the program actually did including dr mcavoy his declaration which was incredibly detailed made clear for suggestions of people to succeed her after her term as richard's program was over that that didn't happen but i don't think that that would represent a human wouldn't wouldn't it when would she at least have been on on i would respond to that by saying that there was no communication that they were going to replace her before she wanted to leave her post that could have been a discussion you know when you're ready when you no longer want to continue in the that and i don't think that the person who i think is dr fitzgerald who wrote the letter above appointment the reference internships after the st year congratulated dr mcavoy a successful performance so he didn't view her performance as anything less than satisfactory to the expectations that he had and appointing her and with respect to the reports there's no evidence in the record that she did not analyze and collect student data it wasn't think the initial proposal said that she would collect and analyze the data which she did one year dr staff requested that she also provide the data to him and in that one year that she did do that but the reports that she used she used from a template that dollars in and reads the supreme court said that there would be instances such as when no rational fact finder could conclude that the action was discriminatory for instance an employer would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the record conclusively revealed some other nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's decision or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer's reason was untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred i would reflect respectfully submit to the court that there is no abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence in this case and there is also the statement you say that the traditional and backward looking i mean you don't deny that somebody could find someone's performance deficient because they were in a program that is in fact traditionally backward i think the critical distinction here your honor is that those statements had no that when a pretextual statement lines up with a stereotype or a bias traditionally associated with a protected class it makes the pretext and the inference of discrimination even stronger and that i think this is one of p o i think that every single time that dr williams used the characterization of backward looking or th century or traditional he always said that the evidence for that was the focus on corporate and criminal law and there was zero focus on corporate  criminal law and the declaration from dr mcavoy and the reports that are in the record talk about all of the things that she did that were innovative including trips speakers events with lawyers  kinds of lawyers that did all kinds of things involved recent graduates who were in law school she involved panelists from admissions from law schools she exposed through these trips through these programs through meeting with lawyers she exposed students to why and variety of things that you could do in the law and almost none of them had to do with corporate criminal law but that's on her declaration and you know reports that were that at the time there was yeah well there was a stipend associated with the director position ok so yes he received this type and when she was the director and then lost that statement once that kind of say in their brief so yes she still teaching but she's not the director and there's a new director and that's fully consistent with their field approach to these director positions and in fact as as your deficient so so are you saying she was going to be removed anyway because we just rotate different people through the program i suppose that would also be in the pool explanation but difficult ones that you offered right i mean this is your a areas where it believed her performance was falling short you know and wasn't meeting as your honor said previously the expectations of the university in terms of you know the relations with the advancement office stereotypes about people who are older i mean why doesn't that create an inference that there's some kind of bias going on why shouldn't that be enough of an inference at least to get passed from richmond sure a couple things there your honor one about the e mail i mean it's undisputed that she only had access to email while she was on campus monday afternoon through thursday and i know she wasn't there friday saturday sunday and didn't have access opposed to the right or wrong very limited i think the one your honor that her back water so was very traditional again that might have been that he explains that might have been the result where she was in the university being in the business school and talks about that he's not talking about her you know her age or anything like that he's just talking about her or actual role at the university and so when you read those poll quotes it's clear i think that he's talking about the program and not her  those are in his deposition well over a year after the decision was made and and the analysis that the district court went through in that the district course in the circuit go through you know you generally look at who made the remark when it was made what the content and what was the was you know she promised to create x number of internships and didn't do it maybe you know you would say well that is uncontroverted and independent but when it's critique seems to line up with you know the same theme and this core has clarified and stated that employers justifications were variations on the thing seen rather than separate inconsistent justification this isn't a case where someone was fired because you're really saying is that there's no contemporaneous at the time o yes your honor i have a number of things i'd like to raise but i'll try to cycle through them quickly in my time i want before moving beyond the discriminatory statements this court recognized in rightly versus  dodge that common stereo type of elderly people is that they would just change in new approaches at directly winds up with this case this court skated in wife's summary judgment is not appropriate in a case where an issue was the plaintiff  is not entirely supported by the record so on page twenty five also erred by allowing an inference actually in favor of the defendant that these statements shouldn't be identified as a basis for an inference based discrimination because he was talking about the program and because he was attributing statements to some things that pete had said but pates denied that he said these things pates when asked during his deposition denied that he had any complaints about the program pates denied that he communicated to dr williams any criticisms of the program  self and so the district or erred by not only making inference in favor of dr williams to find a more favorable and generous interpretation of the statements but the district court ignored or ignored the fact that and making these statements dr williams  attributed to them to a source that denied making them and so it's just consistent with dr williams complete and consistent dishonesty during his deposition that would allow a jury to find that he's not credible on anything he s