staffing netminder did not terminate her is for me very difficult to understand i'm referring of course to the document that staffing network or construed by the l j properly stepping network as the staffing company it sends employees out in various assignments what it said was that she was not able to return to read or link the d n r do not return admonition but that she was eligible for assignment to other companies she signed an employment application it was under about evidence in terms of the personnel policies and business policies of staffing network tents would show up at the branch office for simon she was eligible and could be assigned to other companies and the context that i yes they meant said as much and i am going to refer to some of those facts with respect to what return to read early but also was eligible for assignments someone who is eligible for assignments is not separated from staff in network they're active in the system and able to go on other assignments that undermines that conclusion of  a that there was a terminations here and we contend that one coupled with the other facts that were ignored by the l j it shows that these mistakes underlie the court's decision but coupled with those evidence you're on our route respond to those points by pointing to the advocate south suburban case decided by the seventh circuit in two thousand and six i wish you would point to your case that would be very helpful i will attempt to do so your honor in that case the seventh circuit said when contradicted evidence is ignored as it was in this case it goes to the heart of whether or not there's an error there was an undisputed fact here that mr vega had no authority to terminate miss perera that was undisputed was on his uses to a one to two of them are said come back tomorrow and before you start on the line talk to me that's inconsistent with the term a nation we've talked about yeah i do yes i'm the person being active in the system in available for assignment the behavior mr rare after that date where the h r manager tried on multiple occasions to set up meetings with her to talk to her is inconsistent with the notion that someone's someone was fired the l j also ignored the undisputed facts about the business model here this was a staffing company of people who had the ability as temps to be placed at other assignments and critically ignored the cross examination of mr rarer pages thirty eight thirty nine and forty of the hearing transcript she was cross examined with the board affidavit that she had signed where she admitted she was asked to come back to work the next day instead during the trial she said that i received some phantom text message which wasn't produced into evidence telling me not to the contradictions and the evidence that was not done we contend of course it doesn't actually matter whether stamping network actually terminate deterrent matters so i think she reasonably believed in terminated her and the hand change found her reason and the i understand that you don't agree with that fact finding but if that fact finding is correct do you agree that actual terminations are relevant that reasonable belief control's reasonable believe may control but in this case the facts in the constellation affection show that this worker contacted the company canceled the meeting was a long term temporary employee who knew she was active in the system and could show up that morning to be assigned other clients they l j failed to come to terms with that in compatibility in those range of facts here i want to talk about the error of law on page ten the l j says quote i find the respondent staffing networks multiple offenses provide evidence of its unlawful motive in terminating multiple alternative defenses that's like saying i deny that i was negligent if i was negligent i deny my client's conduct was the proximate cause if i was the proximate cause i deny the plaintiff had any damages or a plaintiff fifty images their comparative advantages was more than they should recover in this case staffing at work did nothing more than plead those alternative defenses the a l j seized upon those alternative defenses as if they were changing shifting explanations of fact and confuse that for the assertion of various alternatives to france as we think that that constellation of factual legal the group of protesting employees that he could send them home for their attitude that just a few minutes later mr ethically confronted miss pereira repeatedly asked her if she was fine and told her that he could send her proud and it includes among other things when they please work in concert with one another to try to change or challenge or protest their working conditions who is working in concert with one another yes your honor which includes not joined together and more than one of them contemporaneously told mr beck that they thought that his treatment of their coworkers was unfair however up this court has recognized also the parts principle that you know when an employee exclusively and the general council on tall cross examination and then counsel had to immediately return it to the general counsel would you like to respond to that well honor i will respond although i'm not entirely familiar there are board regulations which govern and limit the circumstances under which a pretrial affidavit or jinx statement they're sometimes is allowed to be introduced into evidence there are circumstances in which it is allowed but it is limited but if i could your honor in responding what's significant about the company's representation in connection with the affidavit is that contrary to its claims there is absolutely no inconsistency no inconsistency whatsoever a stablished on the record between mr ayres testimony and the affidavit and the reason for that the reason that is not merely not only that the company excuse me not only that the affidavit itself is not in evidence but it's also that the company cross examined miss prayer with the affidavit in their hand and with an opportunity to review the affidavit prior to cross examination and never asked her what the affidavit said or did not say about the test message text message exchange it claims that there's an inconsistently inconsistency stylish in that ms pereira admitted that she said in the affidavit that mr meyer told her she could come back to work the next day but she explained very clearly in the testimony that that was when she was still at the facility before she ruling of the a l j without such a ship authority in terms of its use of a legal analysis focusing on alternative for the facts as the government i would suggest has not responded to that and that is a legal in forth and finally the business model of staffing network was not taken in account here the fact that temp could be assigned to alternative customers and that the business