armed that council all present and accounted for so we will begin by hearing argument in blaze v unintentional change in time sheets and mistakes but was fired yet to compared to others given by varieties and all individuals who had deliberately intentionally falsified records to either deprive employees of overtime or to add additional time to employees who did not work complete with only one comparative that really fit within the category actually there were no comparators that the competitors they raised mr archie cyrus who admitted that he had intentionally falsified time records of his employees to deprive them of overtime because he was mad at them mr blake you said that these were unintentional at it to ninety eight dollars the changes attributed to mr bliss did not change who says factory production productivity ratings security also said that they could not substantiate the police made the changes to increases productivity changes in the record or unintentionally he knew he was changing and didn't he acknowledge that he acknowledged that he change among three different types of occasions one where he went over them with the union and the employee or t it was not his intent to either boost his productivity numbers or deprive any employee of overtime but in the in the rd category yes what is he supposed to do under the rules that is to say if someone under his supervision submits what he believes is an inaccurate or incomplete time sheet is he authorized to unilaterally make changes or is he supposed to either talk to the employee and turn it back until the employee decides whether to make a change or reported up the chain of command that the employee had submitted something accurate is and is there any rule to that effect or not report one point one states view mr blaize must resolve discrepancies in any records and make appropriate corrections the rule itself doesn't say he must go up the chain of the rule authorizes him you are saying to make the changes yes and what and what i believe in this particular case what happened was security finding that he did not engage in any misconduct he did not seek to deprive somebody of overtime he did not seek to improve  no indications they were not properly paid for the overtime they worked in addition when asked and you can check the record i've looked at fry's and has not presented a single document showing any technician who did not get the documents show me where they were deprived over time and they couldn't do so so we have false vacation a false vacation when you look at the truth of what the report demonstrated you then have susan williams s head of h r who's also cohesion elevating the security report that said that that they had all that mr blizzard altered time sheets she then claims that he over time they worked again confirm he denied i thought the i thought the arguable or an arguable motivation although he did not acknowledge it was to to give the impression of increase no there was also unsubstantiated the accuracy said that there was no evidence that he made any changes to increases productivity results the only thing that was done was sometimes if an employee had an overlap on his installation and repair jobs they change he mr place which changed it to make it correct so that the time that was spent on installation and the time on repaired so there was no overlap you couldn't say that i spent you could be doing both at the same time exactly and that's what he testified to in his deposition as well by contrast and by the way within a month and a half after the investigation report came out mr blaze is fired and he's fired and deprived of his bonus he's also fired before they had a nd chance to interview william size and cyrus i'm sorry it's syas is the is the head of h r and only dollars security concluded blaise was guilty of time sheet full suffocation this entire case has been based on mr blaize falsified records and therefore should be fired when the off and no explanation given why they took so much time rights was fired ultimately ultimately but only after the complaints by police saying why me and not him when he actually engage in intentional acts all i did was try to do the company thing and correct records and as i said all the rest of the records that rising produce in this record of other white employees who were fired each and every one of them as we point out are brief were individuals who were far for intentionally and deliberately falsifying records to either add hours to employees or take hours away from employees not a single employee can  fired for an unintentional act were mistaken act as mr blaze was so the record shows if you're black and you gauge a mistake or another unintentional act you get fired the only way the white employee gets fired acts and there's i think you'd be clearer if you did not refer to them as unintentional acts there and acts what you are what you are saying really is acts made with a bad purpose as opposed to ones made without a bad purpose that's the distinction you're drawing it that's what i'm trying to that you did not intend any wrong doing by the acts words the other individuals that that frys incite suit all did deliberately seek to engage in a wrongful act and therefore the inc there is no evidence in this record to support any determination that the decision to terminate mr blaise was made under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination in terms of how we got here he wrong a few points st the intentional unintentional there's no doubt mr blaize maybe is that it's time keeping system is such that it technician hands in a written time sheet and the manager uses a computer and enters the time but is there a rule this is the question i thought that he accurately reported that as i read the rule that it puts the responsibility on the supervisor to make sure that what is put into the system is accurate so what is is there any rule that when a supervisor thinks that something the employee has submitted is in accurate the supervisor is not permitted to make a change on the time sheet but has to do something else there's a comment section your honor mr billy's attended numerous trainings most recently in two thousand and fourteen regarding rise in addition to code training the code of conduct there is manager training on time keeping there's a comment section and in his own statement of security that mr leeson self authored and sent to security he acknowledged that he did not do a good job documenting his changes because what he did was take away time from certain jobs and maybe he did so with innocent motivation but he didn't document what he was doing so when security looked at the time sheets all sixty two of the ones that they reviewed twenty seven of them were changed by mr billy's with no indication as to why he was doing what he did and there is evidence in the record and how is that mechanically done how or what is the supervisor physically supposed to do you said that the employee the underling the worker fills out a paper time sheets so many hours doing such and such  f and then the supervisor inputs that to the computer system and what did did mr blair is put in just simply put into the computer different numbers then or different accounts them was on the paper yes where did he raise the what they submitted and change the underlying record at the technician has the paper time sheet and handed into their supervisor at the end of the day and a manager supposed to be every day takes that kills written time sheets it to his or her computer and types in the information he was the technician at for jobs he was doing installation at this address for two hours installation and this next three hours and types in the start and stop times if there's a change from what the technician put in the time sheet there's a comment section so that you should write adjust it so if there is an error comment section of the computer in the computer in the computer on the sheet itself in the computer in the computer where it where there's an entry and this way if someone looks back at the records you can see why a change was made mr blaize didn't do that and it is own statement to security twice you acknowledge that he did not do a good job in documenting why those that is were made so that when they arrive and just tell me if i am if i have the wrong impression of the record that there is some evidence that there are two sets of handwriting or altered handwriting on written documents is that not right no i believe there's the written time sheets and then there is the computer and ultimately used to blaze did not or he d make written changes on the one technicians time she's no he would just take the written time she's and then enter that into a computer and enter different information in the computer than was on the time sheet right both and so question that was asked i don't think you've answered is is was there a a requirement in the company's policies that that when this happens when a when a supervisor changes the numbers enters into the computer numbers that are different from the numbers on the technician school time sheet that they come and be filled out to explain why this was done yes and mr billy's was trained on that there was a flash which is something that sent out via email to managers regarding different policies so numerous flashes went out to managers on timekeeping in addition to a power point training that we produce that's in the record what do they say when you quote what those for if you're supposed to document all changes work environment and there's a general citation to the some of the documents about those people in the reply brief miss disturber claims that in fact almost all of them said the opposite and when i checked that one out his account seemed more accurate than yours do you have any explanation for that is that in my mis reading those documents that mr stover cites in the your honor of those twelve technicians who were interviewed more than half said that they did not believe that patti brainpan submitted and that's in there then that is a lot different than the twelve denied her and the ones that said they had issue it is we produced the interview notes and those interview notes say one of them for instance said that there was an issue where after the work stoppage there weren't enough tablets available so it wasn't a hostile work environment in terms of and that was investigated and that was determined that it did not create a hostile work false or misleading record such as withholding information or providing incomplete information and then it talks in the training about making the notation but it wasn't just in terms of the time sheets he also changed time between productive and  nonproductive time and the rule isn't in that flash as well for nonproductive time there needs to be a narrative and mr blaze did not put in a narrative so when you give us the citation for that as well for that same flash that same workplace flash and also in the powerpoint presentation that he received this part of it we would like page by page documentation of where we find it in the appendix of things that show that the changes that he made were violations of written company policy that was communicated i understand or i couldn't and the issue here i just want to get to briefly before my turn is up in terms of the evidence of discrimination is that here the decision maker was walter jones and mr jones testified whatever issue was ms smith sayas mr jones testified that he took terminating a manager very seriously he conducted his own investigation he reviewed the security report he reviewed mr blaze's learning history here a view to performance evaluations because he wanted to make sure that mr blaze was treated fairly and mr jones was the same ethnicity and only a few months younger than mr blaize made the decision to terminate his employment mr connelly who is one of the individuals who the  alleges had some sort of discriminatory and it's actually helped mr blaney is right his appeal letter to horizon mr connelly like mr blaze and understood but he also understood that given the nature of the violation here and that rise and had in fact terminated many managers for these type of violations he knew that mr blaize ultimately was going to be terminated for this and it just griffin got you know that show what articulate for  result of that indicated why he made those changes without so that someone looking back could indicate what the changes you had provided that indication that it was correct everything was fired he made changes just like mr blaine's did and he didn't put in narrative statements explaining why he was making those changes and horizon terminated his employment because if you make changes to time sheets because you know his environment that horizon works in as well as its responsibilities to make sure the technicians are paid for all of their time and without showing why you were doing what you were doing there was no explanation for why those changes were made and what prompted this complaint were two anonymous reports that came into horizon from technicians saying that one mr blaze was doing this to boost his productivity and two that they were losing pay so that one of the unanimous both anonymous complaints that came in one the last week of august th the other one early september both were that mr blaze was depriving technicians of pay yes in the report it's in there and then there william sayas who is the h r representative was asked about this during her deposition and she confirmed it and there's e mails between h r and william science that were and in her affidavit submitted a declaration that showing that there were employees who were underpaid as a result and there is no end here whether mr blazer griese with the decision to terminate his employment or not there is no animus there's no evidence of discriminatory conduct whatsoever there's no comments that are alleged and judge brown went through this in his decision in terms of showing there was no pretext there's no comments and that there was a legitimate reason for terminating  for first things st the documents that they claim show that employees were not paid overtime it's not in the record you will not find a single document in the record showing that any employee was not paid overtime what you will find is the security reports say not a single field technician stated that they lost any overtime as a result of what mr billie's had done and i cited to you earlier in the page that that's and secondly with regard to his changing of n p t absolutely and the other on the n p t time you will not find a single document record showing where mr blaize change in n p t time i asked for that too but that's not in the record there's not a single document in the interest you do you dispute the proposition made by your adversary that it was communicated to the plaintiff that it was a rule that you were not to make the kinds of changes that he made without documenting them by explaining in the comment section why the change was made i dispute that the rule three point one point one does not state that and i have not is that it was communicated to him in training sessions in flashes that were distributed i not seen that and your honor with all due respect if something was in a flash to a training session and not incorporated into rule with everything else that the senior managers get on a daily basis are they supposed to remember one little flash that was in there but i have not seen i have not seen anything in the record and i could be wrong i've reviewed this alliance and opposition and you are lying on the proposition that what he did intentionally was to make changes to make the records more correct and that that was authorized by the rules yes and the rule is just what the number is one point one three three and report one thirteen point one point one and where is that i believe you can find that at ph three  the appendix ok thank you also just i just wanted hit on the jones aspect before my time is up and that's mr card only signed determination ms science brought the information claim is false we cation if mr jones did anything his deposition shows he reviewed what science and connally had given to him in addition to that on february th mr blaize filed an appeal of his terminations and who decided that appeal now walter jones it was miss susan william size she had the final word she's the one who denied the appeal and i can give you the page number of her of her denial as well be th record she