c is maintained because it's systemic systematic and it secret the reason they can continue to discriminate against professors such as my client is because how the ex con committing in this case held their meetings composer rankings was kept secret from dr gerardo the court below erred by considering her deposition testimony where she testified that she did not have personal knowledge of how and why and what was the basis of the committee s rankings one of the one of the rationales judgment ellie used is that you can't show causation with respect to your retaliation claim that she was getting lackluster  raises for hand and she makes your charges getting lackluster raises afterwards and therefore you can't show that her protected activity caused her lackluster raises that's her direction now right assuming a rationale to be correct that is making a decision of the material highly disputed fact well that's what's what's what facts in what i've just posited are disputed you got poor raises before if you if you look at the declaration of the separate statement of undisputed facts and the retaliation claim and she's saying well we have to look at wages as a component dr gerardo has tenure this is an unusual case she's saying that because of her outspoken opinions with how u s c deals with women in general and with student population she was retaliated against by the only method possible that they could use against her they couldn't before what we're talking past each other well she rated low prior to her protected activity we dispute the ratings because there was i know you're saying that she wasn't rated fairly i understand that because it but it's true that she was rated low prior to her tech that activity was not is not true you know your honor that you got high ratings she was the top performer in the department there's no evidence to support that one way or another because all of that evidence according to dr timmy's deposition testimony was destroyed he comes up with this conclusion based upon numbers these numbers are meaningless they don't have any meaning unless you put them in context and context of this particular case if she first of all we look at the full professors who are who are male and female there's only her so she's so if you look at it from a point of statistical disparity as set forth by our two experts then the discrimination is systemic and then the cause ation flows from that once she complained in ninety seven against him he he he zeroed her out alon so i was on the right track back in ninety seven she was getting low ratings from the dean from dean to me dean to me is the bad guy ok and then judgment also she was getting she was getting a low ratings from the dean before she filed  a charge that is that isn't correct just told me that she got zeroed out by doing to me in ninety seven and ninety seven but she complained in ninety south about discrimination the ratings the intent follows the discriminatory intent in this case follows the mission or if that is a pertinent fact i think that the facts contained in the in the excerpts of record that we filed in the opening brief are sufficiently warrant a reversal because not in the excerpts of record and i didn't include in the excerpts record i apologize for that or the court's not mention of the brief either i'm just wondering if there's some reason for that there is no reason other than the fact that i've tried to hone in on the even though this is a denial of a review i try to hone in on the stated reasons that the court below made in dismissing her three and essence or three claims for discrimination and he will pay act in retaliation but to answer your question about the cause ation issue the causation issue can be derived from the fact that de tiny after she complained and there's evidence of the council likes to call them straight remarks but there are comments made that demean women that demeans students that  human resources of the e o officer and to be and to me himself so what he did his only remedy was he was the ultimate approver of these illusory ratings if you look at the the charts they mean nothing in context they just is also true that she wouldn't provide that kind of information to the provost because she was mad at the university you know your honor that's not true at all that's a quote that's a disputed question of fact mean to me claims that she was ordered to do so there's e mails on the record that's that's basically says i tell my grievances resolve i prefer to do things in writing or we have to we're not talking about that isn't there or isn't there an email from dr gerardo saying i'm not going to provide my achievements to the university if you look at the criteria that they use for teaching service and research it's that i tash that and the and the records if you look at that criteria there is nothing in there about collegiality being nice to the dean those are in the stiegel case those are what i would call hot terms there discriminatory if a woman is assertive she's an kleagle if she didn't go to the retreats because she didn't want to participate in drinking in those things to be in the boys club that's uncooperative if you look at research her research is impeccable her service isn't hackable her teaching is impeccable they come up with this scenario did that continually if you look at the minutes she says we're under represented resented here this is in ninety seven when dean to me comes on board so what he the only thing he could do he kept her off committees he resigned  cancelled one of her french classes he took away her authority to even write the syllabus for the classes that she's supposed to teach and if you look at the price in case that we cited once you have tenure honor those types being on select committees she wasn't allowed to sit on the x comp committee that does these supposedly secret ratings and then with their supply revolver you want to use that all you can it's time i think i should thank you let me begin by answering dr so vermont's question yes she got continuously poor ratings both by the executive committee which is elected by the faculty for peer review purposes in a secret ballot election but the evidence of their own expert yes that but for gerardo there is no evidence that the intending move women who are indeed their own expert or know or he moved her well in some records were apparently destroyed the individual writings except for one year were according to the usual process discarded that's in order to maintain the anonymity of the process that had been the process all along there and by the way it was not a material lowering the year after by the way let me say this the year after the e e o c charge was filed it is undisputed he did not touch the rating of the executive committee he left it on changed the very year after the e charge was filed however it is undisputed that he did that he was displeased with her behavior and several respects first of all she did indeed it is in the record didn't you hear me nothing has changed nothing has changed as a quote i won't meet with you she refused to attend the annual retreat which seemed to me thought important why did she not attend the annual faculty treats retreat she says they want important she says there was no agenda there were no publications that came out of their four and dr joe ragosta view they were not important and very important is the year that she was zeroed out allusion was made to dr gerardo having made a complaint in one thousand nine hundred seven before her e o c complaint in the year two thousand that complaint which alleges both sex discrimination and denial of academic freedom was that she was  out for an incident of her threatening a female faculty member with the disclosure of private embarrassing facts namely that female faculty members alcoholism denial of that race a faculty panel of two female professors and one male professor from outside of the school of architecture heard that grievance and concluded that zeroing her out was perfectly appropriate findings of fact one of the problems with the finding that of the their expert one of the many problems that judgment all pointed out was that he included the zeroing out year which was perfectly justified by the findings of the faculty committee i want to point out also this notion of stereotyping the circuit rightly has concluded that stereotyping on the basis of sex can be a form of sex discrimination however i want meat with my penis and get away with it where is the evidence that a male could say i want soup and that what the provost ask for and get away with it or refuse consistently to attend faculty retreats or worst of all as f worse than aggressive it's misconduct was tolerated on the part of any males and in talking about you know what kind of kind up dr gerard engaged  to get quite aggressive in terms of forcing me or wanting to force me to say a lie about professor skeel steel that's s t r sixty two and then miss buckley went on but she did not  i'm biased panel consisting of two women and one man and the use of the word aggressive in this case by a woman who is a victim of that aggression is hardly stacks of stereotyping i want to make one other point very important  well not addressed by jack mccallum because they were not raised but well and if you look at those remarks and your remarks allegedly to a student for example that is allegedly sexist by not twenty but by one on one member of the executive committee you will find that those are buried in complaint letters that mr orcutt professor drew out a wrote and there's a student told me this student told me that another professor told me this attachment i was not given the alice points and that wasn't done by playing for an equal pay act basis but even comparing total salary to total salary it is perfectly ok to take account of market market factors and your honor has so ruled i believe in from a circuit equal pay cases in the ninth circuit one of the leading cases on that very point is the first of two stanley versus university southern california cases thirteen f third thirteen thirteen otherwise she's outspoken on feminist issues so we use the term aggression so let me focus on the argument about the grievance hearing the grievance hearing took almost three years in iran when this testimony that counsel just read to you it's on page seventeen of my brief it was and february of all on or april of zero one if even assuming that's to be true how could that be taken into consideration for her lower raises for ninety six ninety seven ninety eight ninety nine in the year two thousand it's an argument it's a factual argument it's a material argument that a trier of fact should hear not the trial court and if you look at their own expert on their exhibit sixty s g r twenty six it's the last page of dr awards analysis based on the facts if you just look about her the last incident there response to the e e o c charge that he didn't give her a higher rating the inference that i draw from that is that shows a consciousness of guilt on behalf of doing t