facia the courts and he has not rebutted the company's statement that they had no business need for a dream and no right while that was all going on about the same time in two thousand and three years after you're asking for he sat down he typed a letter yes but this is what i'm asking for i need an apprenticeship you need to sign this that's the only way i can get it was passed around between various people and finally sent back to him saying well since you're in litigation we want to go through you want it we want you to go through your attorney in the future on these kind of things and we are rejecting your request at this times we have no business need inductors didn't really human resources to revise or explained when pressed the clearest evidence was john parish because we had his journeymen for work that was processed by and there is evidence that there were more there were three more what's unclear is when they got there when did they get their to come in from scratch with no experience and go through the whole program take all the courses in and that i believe is a four year program the other way though is to get partial credit for your work experience is that an advantage for some products for properties that is something that they actually raised below that we don't want you to leave we don't want to be valuable we don't want you to increase your credentials you claimed is that they stated they weren't sure what their obligations would be that when they were pressed for every act for an explanation that was the reason they gave we have no idea what our commitment would be already had to do was ask mr wells and mr parrish what w that better have there were two individuals in one thousand and seventy two who applied for and apparently participated in the program but the record reflects that there was simply a letter sent to those individuals homes saying we agree to be a sponsor then that individual goes before the jury committee and at that point a decision is made as to whether that individual will clear credit for all of the parts of his or her prior on the job experience because there's an eight thousand hours of ledger for you know requirement now granted mr bernard it may have been get may have ultimately received credit for all of the part of that but you don't regular reports to the appropriate apprenticeship committee in addition the individuals who take this program take a number of classes and sometimes those classes are aspart at times that are convenient for the employer and sometimes there are times that conflict with the employees work shifts as an employer if you have breached the sponsorship you may be agreeing to have your employee in class during your hydraulics class even though what happens to be is a program bring us the form to shows the time the class meet it interferes with your work schedule will make a determination whether during this lack of time we can accommodate that and in mr granada's case he took five hydraulics classes and in each case he was permitted to arrive at work two hours early and leave work two hours early but the employer was able to additional people into the program under circumstances that would be similar to his application i would agree with you that at that point the issue would have changed because other individuals  who were not hispanic presumably would have been permitted into the program the problem with the plaintiff's case here is that the issue in the first case and i'm reading right out of the plaintiff's complaint in the first case is beginning in same opportunity in the current lawsuit the allegation errors in refusing to sponsor a plaintiff for the apprenticeship program disbanding treated plaintiff differently from other persons outside his protected class that motion there's no evidence in the record why that did not occur but there are only two possibilities either it was considered and deemed to be a less favorable procedural route because by bringing in a new lawsuit of course there was an opportunity to make new discovery requests which is what happened to take new depositions and to try to compare the deposition testimony which is what happened and to try to really create the issue appears to have benefited from its procedural the manner in which it's proceeded through this court system  that of course would have been developed on a sixty of emotion or would have been discovered in the first place had she been asked those questions or had those documents been requested that didn't that didn't happen and instead i'm standing before you with an they can't be identical because they were different requests three years apart and therefore under frank in the other case the claim for issue preclusion cannot apply thank you