[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
I won't get it wrong again.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
And I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:00:18] Speaker 04:
Yes, may it please the court.

[00:00:22] Speaker 04:
When does it get ridiculous, the District of Nevada dismissing these cases on either summary judgment or a motion to dismiss?

[00:00:32] Speaker 04:
I mean, especially with respect to the age count, age discrimination and

[00:00:39] Speaker 04:
I've been doing these cases for close to 30 years, and I've never seen a better age case than this.

[00:00:48] Speaker 04:
I mean, we have a set of facts here where the state of Nevada, the Department of the Treasurer's Office,

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
They gave my client no notice that she was doing anything wrong.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
There's no documentation, no emails, no write-ups, no anything.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
And then all of a sudden, they call her into a meeting and say she's terminated because they want to go in a different direction.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
Your client, am I correct?

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
Your client was an at-will employee.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
Yeah, they served at the pleasure of the treasurer's office.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
So typically, at will employee means you don't need any reason to terminate them, but you can't terminate someone for an illegal reason.

[00:01:37] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
So you could terminate someone because you feel they're not really on the team of an elected official.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
You can terminate them because you just don't think they're a good colleague.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
You can't terminate them because of their age or their race or their religion.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
or other protected grounds.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
And, of course, you would agree, I mean, I think all your honors have done these cases before, with respect to an employer is not going to say we terminated the person because of their age.

[00:02:13] Speaker 04:
I mean, they're going to come up with a different reason, but the fact that they didn't even have a reason initially

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
and then come up with all these reasons, that's blatant, in my opinion, pretext.

[00:02:27] Speaker 03:
Well, it's not that the evidence is they didn't have a reason.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
The evidence is before they began the termination proceedings, they didn't tell your client they had a reason.

[00:02:40] Speaker 03:
Isn't that a difference?

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
Well, yes, yeah, but I mean, you would think, I mean, we're talking about a state agency.

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
If anything, they should be over-documenting stuff, not under-documenting.

[00:02:53] Speaker 04:
And the fact that the prior treasurer did have something in Ms.

[00:02:59] Speaker 04:
Salahin's file would indicate that they do document.

[00:03:04] Speaker 03:
Well, some of them do.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
And I mean, they did not rely, and they're not relying here, other than in a footnote in their brief, on the problems the prior treasurer had.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
But some of those problems that Mr. Schwartz, the prior treasurer, had are some of the same ones they say they had, right?

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
I'm looking specifically at SCR 5-

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
Mr. Schwartz's January 10, 2017 letter.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
And it looks to me like some of the same types of things.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, but that letter is not really relevant here because of the fact that it's the new treasurer and everything.

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
But again, and Treasurer Schwartz did give her a letter of recommendation and whatnot.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
And so, but I mean, not only do you have that, but you have other evidence that I think, and again, we're on summary judgment, so could a jury find for the defendant?

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
Yeah, the jury could find for the defendant, but there's multiple pieces of evidence here that

[00:04:30] Speaker 04:
that shows that it's reasonable for a jury to come to a conclusion in my client's favor, and for the court to say there just isn't enough evidence for a reasonable jury to come to that conclusion for my client, in my view, is just ridiculous.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
There are two kinds of evidence, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
As to direct evidence, what direct evidence is there that there was age discrimination?

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, in general, in all discriminations, it's going to have to be an inference.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
There is no direct evidence.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
Are you claiming that Dixon's statement that we need new fresh faces here goes to the issue of age rather than personalities?

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, I mean, well, yeah, there's statements from Miles Dixon that my client felt was age-biased.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
She felt it was age-biased, but objectively, can't one treasurer in a political position want fresh faces without being age-biased?

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but wouldn't you think that it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that those were biased because of her age?

[00:05:50] Speaker 04:
And on summary judgment, you're supposed to be looking at the evidence in favor of the non-moving party.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
What evidence can you point to as to pretext that they didn't really fire her because of her resistance to change, her inability to focus, her strategic plan was unintelligible, and she was unprofessional in her conduct towards workers?

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
What contrary evidence was there to that?

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
Well, there's pretext in the sense that none of that came about until after she filed with the EOC, after this litigation ensued.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
So employers, you know, they have to come up with the reason.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
So after the fact, they come up with the reason such as that.

[00:06:46] Speaker 02:
And did you put in evidence to to controvert that reason?

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
Did I what?

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
We put in evidence to controvert that reason.

[00:06:54] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I mean, that's in my brief.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
Maybe you could tell us about the evidence that you put in that that controverts that proffered reason.

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, there is.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
On the reason there was a reason that there was declarations from or affidavits from three or four of the employees that they said that Ms.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
Salaheen was

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
difficult with other employees or yelled at other employees and there's affidavits to the contrary.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
I mean, two of the reasons are just kind of subjective things that they're saying, Miles Dixon and Zach Conine.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, I don't know that there is any, I mean, that's just their opinion that she wasn't on board or she wasn't in step with where the treasurer wanted to go.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
I thought you had a declaration controverting that from Ms.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
Yates, who was her supervisor during the relevant time.

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but I mean, I think, yeah, but they're saying that's just self-serving.

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
But yeah, we do have that evidence.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
And that could, I mean, that's a good point.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
That can be believed by a jury.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
And again, on summary judgment, you're supposed to make all reasonable inferences from the non-moving party.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
So what evidence is there that

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
she was fired because of her age.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
Is it the comments that they made to her, one quoted by Judge Baia?

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
What is your best evidence?

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
Well, I think that.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
I think the fact that they replaced my client, who was 58 at the time, with somebody that was 38.

[00:08:52] Speaker 04:
And on the same day, they replaced her supervisor, who was 62, with somebody who

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
that was 30, they were the two oldest employees in the office.

[00:09:03] Speaker 04:
After Treasurer Conine took office, 9 of 11 in the savings division were under 40 that were hired.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's, you know, together there's quite a bit of evidence in an age case.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
I mean, you have,

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
You don't even have this much evidence in most aged cases.

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
I think you have a lot of evidence here to, again, to...

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
reasonably believe that it was because of age.

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
Am I saying if a trier fact heard it, they might not agree with the Treasurer's Office?

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
I'm not saying that.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
But that's not what we're here on today.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
We're here to see if it's reasonable to come to that conclusion.

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
You know, and then on the age harassment, I mean, I think there's no less than, and that was a separate cause of action, there's no less than 11 either comments or actions that were taken that arguably were harassing her because of her age.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
I mean, on age harassment, you're supposed to look at whether the environment

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
is hostile to that person because of the protected class.

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
I think, again, here, clearly, you could come to that conclusion on the evidence.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
The two other causes of action, I mean, I think those should also survive summary judgment, the termination based on the FMLA or the ADA, because I think they did, they had notice of that, and I think they...

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
notice.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
While they had notice I think it was October I want to say.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
But haven't they submitted evidence that they started the termination proceedings by contacting the AG's office either in August or right around Labor Day?

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
Yeah but if you look at those those emails and stuff I think they're contained on the

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
Sir, 27 through 29.

[00:11:16] Speaker 04:
I mean, none of those really say that they were going to getting ready to terminate or they, you know.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
They wanted a template to put together a termination letter is what they've said, right?

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
Well, they want to argue.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
Why?

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
They've argued that the reason they were seeking the template from the AG's office was because they wanted to use that as the template for the termination letter for your client.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
Well, where are you reading that?

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
I mean, they did say they were looking into severance and stuff like that.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
But I mean, these definitely are not emails that are direct on the point.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
I mean, if they were, they'd say, hey, we're looking to terminate Ms.

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
Salahian.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
And then the fact that they waited.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
So to answer your question, what I'm looking at is the

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
depot transcript of Miles Dixon at SER 101 and SER 118.

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
And he, I don't have that in front of me, but he says that.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
Well, what it says in his answer is there is an email I believe dated September 3rd in which the Attorney General's office provided us with a template of a separation agreement.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
Well, I

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
I mean, it seems their main evidence on that point is these emails, and I don't feel these really are direct on point as to the termination.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
Did you want to reserve the rest of your time?

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

[00:12:53] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
May I please the Court, Alina Croft, on behalf of the State of Nevada, Nevada State Treasurer's Office, and State Treasurer, Zach Conine.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
I'd like to begin with the assumption underlying all of appellant's claims in this matter, that in discrimination actions, the employer has the burden of proving that it has objectively correct cause for firing an at-will employee.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
That is not the correct standard in discrimination actions.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
This assumption flips the at-will employment relationship, which is at issue in this matter.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
Solihian was an unclassified employee of the State Treasurer's Office at the time of her termination in 2019.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
There was no obligation of a continuing employment relationship as the state has with classified employees.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
Terms and conditions of employment are set by the State Treasurer's Office in which she serves at the will of the State Treasurer.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
Ergo, if her performance is not up to their satisfaction and she stops serving at the will of the State Treasurer, she will be terminated, which she was in this case.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
Croft, it seems to me that there were four specific reasons given by the treasurer to terminate.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
And the question I have is whether there's any credible, admissible evidence which rebuts them so that a triable issue of fact can be made as to whether those were the real reasons why she was fired rather than age discrimination.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
And let me take you through them.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
One, I don't know if I pronounced this right, Sahelian was resistant to change and challenges, right?

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
That's one of the reasons they gave.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
Now, her supervisor, Ms.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
Yates, I think that's how you pronounce her name, Yates,

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
stated that while Yates was her direct supervisor for years, Sahenian and her staff had made many changes, and while Sahenian was in charge of the program.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
So that would be

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
some evidence contrary to the claim that she was resistant to change.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
You'll find that a paragraph 26 of Ms.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
Yates's affidavit.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
Doesn't that create an issue of fact as to whether she was resistant to change and therefore that that was a pretextual reason?

[00:15:55] Speaker 01:
No, it would not create a material issue of genuine fact because that would not, that does not speak to the decision-maker's thought process.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
Nancy Yates was her direct supervisor, but she was not the upper management who made the decision to terminate her.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
But it's circumstantial evidence that her supervisor vouches that she's able to handle changes and challenges.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
That's circumstantial evidence which was, could go to the decision-maker's decision, could it not?

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
It would not in this case, Ms.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
Yates was terminated at the same time as Ms.

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
Salekian for a different but in a somewhat related reason because in management's viewpoint they did not view

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
No, the district would not make a credibility assessment, but with this issue that would not require a credibility assessment.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
The assessment here at summary judgment is whether plaintiff has presented specific and circumstantial evidence of pretext.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
Right, but I think that the point of the passage from the declaration that Judge Bea read is that, you know, her direct supervisor is in a position to evaluate her work and sees the work.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
And if we credit her statement, which a jury might not, but if we credit it, that seems to directly contradict the reason that the employer proffered for the termination, doesn't it?

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
Just because it contradicts the reasoning does not create in itself a genuine issue of material fact.

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
Why not?

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
Again, it does not speak to the decision-maker thought process.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
the decision-making process.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
But you never have.

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
How do you ever have direct evidence of the decision-maker's process?

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
You have other people who have observed what happened in the workplace, maybe they heard things that the decision-maker said, but that may or may not be a true reflection of their decision-making process internally.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
in some sense, circumstantial evidence.

[00:18:44] Speaker 02:
And this, again, seems like very strong circumstantial evidence, isn't it?

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
We would say no because it is not specific nor substantial, which is the standard for indirect circumstantial evidence.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
Let me take you to another issue that was raised, that she was unprofessional in her conduct to co-workers.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Yates in her affidavit, paragraph 17, ER 152-3, says, Yates never witnessed any such conduct while Yates was her supervisor.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
That's a direct conflict regarding the treatment of staff, isn't it?

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
Why doesn't that create a tribal issue of fact as to pretext?

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
It would not in this case, again going back to the issue that Ms.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
Yates and her

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
affidavit and the fact that she stays within.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
Miss Yates was terminated at the same time.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
Well, you're saying that since Yates was terminated at the same time, she's probably biased in favor of Miss Aliyah, and that's an issue that you can bring up at trial.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
It goes to the weight of her testimony, but it doesn't go to the fact that it creates a conflict in the evidence.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
But there are also other, as you pointed out, there are four reasons for her termination.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
Yes, there is.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
As a matter of fact, they also say that the Sahinian strategic plan was unintelligible and was terrible.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
And when Corrine, Conine, and Dixon told Sahinion she was fired, Sahinion asked why.

[00:20:23] Speaker 00:
This is in Yeats' declaration.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
And Conine and Dixon said nothing more than, we're going in a different direction.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
That's all they said.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
They didn't say anything similar to what they're saying now.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
So aren't these all tribal issues a fact as to why they really got, why they terminated Miss Sahinion?

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
With regards to what was said at Metallican's termination, the statement, we're going in a different direction, that is not necessarily a reason given for termination.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
This is not a situation of- Then why did they say it?

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
This is the diplomatic statement.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
This is an at-will employee.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
Diplomacy is the action that civilized people take to turn people down.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
Fair point.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
But at the same time, that statement by itself, it is no reason at all.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
It is simply an acknowledgement that you're an honorable employee and that you are no longer serving at the pleasure of the state treasurer.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
But they didn't tell her that her strategic plan was unintelligible and terrible and give her a chance to explain herself.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
They just said, we're going in a different direction.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
And lastly, she's accused of being unable to focus

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
But again, Yates says that Dixon, the treasurer's chief of staff, had asked Sahanian for reports, input and information, but Sahanian had to wait months for feedback from Dixon, unlike the feedback from Dixon to mail employees, which came much sooner.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
Now, it wasn't her failure to focus, it was a failure to be told that her reports were somehow not good.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
It does not create a tribal issue of fact.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
No, it would not in this case, simply because the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff at all times.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
The burden is not on the employer to show that it actually had good cause for termination of an actual employee.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
I couldn't agree with you more.

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
The burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff at trial.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
But at summary judgment, the burden is to produce evidence which creates a triable issue of fact.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
That's a different burden.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
Once the employer states a legitimate reason for the termination, which appellant concedes that it did?

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
If it's legitimate.

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
Which appellant concedes that it is legitimate?

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
A legitimate reason was preferred.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
There were four different reasons, which you have iterated.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
I take it that part of your argument also is that when dealing with

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
at-will employee who serves at the pleasure of the treasurer just wanting somebody new in the office is a good enough reason.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
That would be a good enough reason, correct, especially in this matter because it brings up, emphasizes the point that there is no documentation of prior performance issues.

[00:23:43] Speaker 01:
One just discussed there doesn't have to be for an at-will employee, but also as per,

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:23:52] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure.

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
terminating an at will relationship.

[00:24:11] Speaker 03:
I thought one of your reasons was sort of a variant of what I said was this is a political appointee, I mean an elected official and the office wanted to go in a new direction.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
Wasn't that one of the reasons that you argued that you did want to go in a new direction?

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
That was the statement given to Ms.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
Selikian at the date of her termination, October 20th, 2019.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
Again, that would not strictly be a reason for termination given because you do not have to give a reason at termination of an at-will employee.

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
And as we established, we have deposition testimony confirming that the state treasurer's office in saying that was acting on advice given to them by legal counsel.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
At the same time, the issue here is whether the plaintiffs have established that they have substantial and specific evidence, circumstantial evidence of pretext and none of the other piece of evidence that they've offered come close to that individually and when considered cumulatively.

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
But I would also point out that,

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
Because the reason for termination or the non-reason for termination given on October 28th was we are going in a different direction, it does not constitute a shift in employer's justification as in cases where that they pull in sites where there are instances where the employer does not

[00:26:02] Speaker 01:
say that the performance issue was at play at termination, and then when an EEC charge was filed, they said that there are performance issues, and then when litigation comes around, there's more issues on top of that.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
This is not a situation like this.

[00:26:18] Speaker 01:
This is a non-reason given, and then there's no,

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
reason to call into doubt that the reason was invalid.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
And the burden is not on the employer to show that the reason was actually true.

[00:26:37] Speaker 01:
It does not even have to be objectively correct.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
They have to show that the employer did not actually believe that to be true at time of termination.

[00:26:49] Speaker 01:
And they have not presented any substantial or specific evidence to that effect.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
And just to conclude, because I'm not sure on time, you know, Lindahl v. Air France states that a plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment simply because they make a prima facie case and intended to attack the credibility of the employer's witnesses on cross-examination.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
That is exactly what they're trying to do here.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
And again, it is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment, which was properly granted in this case and should be affirmed.

[00:27:49] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:27:52] Speaker 03:
Council, you have a few minutes left.

[00:28:03] Speaker 04:
Yes, just a few points, Your Honors.

[00:28:07] Speaker 04:
And, you know, you did pick up on Ms.

[00:28:12] Speaker 04:
Yates' affidavit.

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
I mean, it's interesting that the district court in

[00:28:18] Speaker 04:
their order on page 10, lines 12 and 13 says Ms.

[00:28:26] Speaker 04:
Yates was fired by the same decision-makers suggesting her work performance was similarly unsatisfactory to Treasurer Conine's and

[00:28:37] Speaker 04:
his executive team.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
I mean a judge on summary judgment is not supposed to be assessing the credibility of witnesses.

[00:28:46] Speaker 04:
Clearly here that's what the judge is doing and saying basically Ms.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
Yates is not credible, but that's not for the judge to say.

[00:28:55] Speaker 04:
Also

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
I mean, the judge actually found as to the pretext, I don't really understand it, but she says on page 11, lines 15 and 16, while the lack of documentation here

[00:29:17] Speaker 04:
supports a finding of pretext in general, in a general sense.

[00:29:23] Speaker 04:
I don't know what that, you know, she's even saying that, so I think she was even not clear on whether

[00:29:33] Speaker 04:
summary judgment should be granted here or not.

[00:29:36] Speaker 04:
So I mean, I just think overall there, and your honors brought it out, I think that there is, you know, whether you want to believe the evidence or not is for the jury.

[00:29:50] Speaker 04:
It's not for the judge on summary judgment to decide.

[00:29:54] Speaker 04:
I mean, my client, I've been doing this for years.

[00:29:58] Speaker 04:
She is a top-notch employee, and I wouldn't just say that.

[00:30:03] Speaker 04:
dealt with numbers of employees over the years.

[00:30:07] Speaker 04:
And in Nevada, as in other states, employees have the right to employment discrimination and employees' rights is not just something that should be swept under the table.

[00:30:22] Speaker 04:
and summary judgment or motions to dismiss granted in every case.

[00:30:26] Speaker 04:
This case is worthy of a trial.

[00:30:29] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
Salahian deserves a trial in this matter.

[00:30:33] Speaker 04:
I think definitely on the age discrimination, age harassment issues, and I think also the other issues, but the strongest clearly are- Would you conclude, counsel?

[00:30:45] Speaker 04:
Yeah, so with that, I conclude and submit on

[00:30:51] Speaker 03:
We thank both counsel for their arguments and the case just argued is submitted.

[00:30:56] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.