granting summary judgment in employment cases and the reason for that is that employers particularly in this day and age are unlikely to leave the smoking gun admitting in the scheme a story retaliatory motives i believe in this case the evidence accumulated the evidence case there is no mention of the fact that there was an issue with declining revenue he was rated as meet expectations in january and march of two thousand and fifteen and the other thing is that we've pointed out of did a deposition that she didn't make the decision to terminate and and only became aware at be terminated after the fact that's cracked so there's they have some contradictions because they also say that she did play a role however  do an interview of the st witness on march th two thousand and fifteen on march th mr blair's on is terminated and they do nothing essentially to investigate they don't interview the person ms brown gross who said so i think that also supports the claim that there was that there was retaliation in the war records locoed said well you don't have any evidence that the decision makers knew about the complaint but this court has found that th individual who can investigate complaints commission so i'm not blaming the individual i'm saying that this is a complaint of discrimination it should be true and there are procedures set forth what they're supposed to comment she said now what evidence is there that the inadequacy of the investigation is tied to racial animus the only evidence is that it would depart from the normal practice so i proposed the h r representative and she said this is what i do in ever i'm from new york city cooperation council for kelly despite being given many chances to improve plaintiffs was let go for chronic under performance in many different job areas that started right out of the gate including a lack of collaborative skills and alienating rather recycle colleagues at a time when one would think he'd be out to impress the plaintiffs who was the hospital nd choice between two white men to do a job plaintiff had never done before which is to merge both inpatient and outpatient accounting your answer to the statement that he was doing this for thirty years yes that and that what had hit the hospital is a completely different entity than his previous hospitals what has he been doing for thirty years and what was the new generating the revenue cycle depended on having a good collaborative relationship among the different methods the departments and that's why in the end of the summer ms green tried to set him up and did set him up with counterparts at other hospitals so that he would learn better the systems and it was to no avail that came out in his performance evaluation that he did not take advantage of those opportunities she had provided him he really didn't benefit from the mor and he didn't the benefit from them he did not capitalize on them did not make them work for him and when did when did that take place the meetings with other hospital representatives at the to support a finding that there was racial discrimination that was behind his terminations why isn't that enough we've said that circumstantial evidence is enough in some circumstances i believe it's not it may be enough for facia case but there is no evidence educed that his replacement what her quote her qualifications were or were not whether they were higher or lower so that can't form the basis for  an ultimate finding of discrimination and the fact that mr guzman said that treaty is out to get you even if admissible doesn't reflect any racial animus whatsoever discovery when he deposed perspire him belong here that's right and he was inconsistent in recounting that statement and giving the date regarding that statement and triple hearsay was terminated and that according to a good month's testimony he told mr boras on in november that he should start looking for a new job because green was not happy with them so the difference between the sheets out to get you  i mean i don't think there's any dispute that she by november she was he was communicating to mr boras on that she's not happy with them so there is a speed here and when she comes in in may she was newly hired his job is to merge two systems so where should we look in the records to see in this period from made in november that is the deficiencies in his performance have become so evidence first want to point out that  his evaluation for the st six months was a mandatory evacuation that wasn't so great and said let's put him on an evaluation schedule a corporate policy says no but you can there are many examples in the appendix support the revenue in financial problems that were ongoing during those st six months of his employment for example total receipt there is a line item when you compare the prior month there was a decrease every month during those six months of  except for one month to lie which is not in the record why would it be unreasonable to expect that he would be able to effect an improvement so quickly when this is a systematic problem is common to merge two systems it seems to me that performance evaluation replete examples of how he submitted submitted analyses and work with errors how he had problems interacting with his colleagues how he demonstrated degree of anger at meetings how alienated his colleagues how was imperative at the revenue cycle department were collaborative that this is all coming from his performance evaluation january two thousand and fifteen and that he's had problems developing good relationships with colleagues performance fact remedial performance action plan talked about how we need to improve collecting collections how frequent the one dollar to one dollar meetings were how we need to improve the medicaid submission rate by twenty percent how we need to ensure point the point is that we have not this is not a case like conferences and all x where we've given diametrically opposed reasons for his being terminated from the position of patient for the entire ten years that he was there and kwan there were two completely different reasons given one was that there was a change in corporate focus and one that she had a bad performance evaluation just as the score to tell is that i mean if we were to find based on his title seven arguments that this title seven claims survived the standards apply the new york state human and new york city would kind of it's just by that very fact that's true but if  difficult it was a very different film and it affects somebody else fail doesn't mean that he had nothing the evidence may be that that he was competent and fail in which case they probably should have fired h outlined not that specific test but his task was in general to help the hospital collect money to make sure that they collected enough revenue over the course that was at the highest level it was to help possible succeed  trying to make sure that the hospital collects revenue it's a sum a kind of patient population so i think it's a it's a similar scenario it's some evidence that he was qualified to do the job i'm not saying it was a day but it is it is evidence of such  o what you're left with is essentially subjective subjective statements even collaborate with colleagues he didn't colleagues didn't like and that's contradicted by when mr goodman hired him eleven months prior to his terminations he changes that mr green was hired and the screen was the driving force in getting him to be terminated thank you thank you b