Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is the no-nonsense employment law podcast made exclusively for employees. After 200+ episodes, we deliver the straight talk your employer and HR don’t want you to hear — covering every work and career issue that actually matters.
Hosted and produced by Mark Carey, a veteran employment lawyer with 29 years of experience who has litigated hundreds of cases — including class actions — in state and federal courts nationwide. Mark cuts through the BS with blunt, practical advice, always presenting both sides so you can make informed decisions. This podcast is also about your employment story and other courageous employees who have spoken out about their employers. If you work for a living, this is your podcast.
Subscribe to our employee podcast show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this employee podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
Gender Discrimination: Jennifer Palmer v. eCapital Corp.
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
What happens when the only female CEO in a male-dominated industry faces allegations of gender discrimination and retaliation? Join Mark Carey and his co-host as they unravel the compelling case of Palmer v. Capitol Corp., where Jennifer Palmer, a trailblazer in the financial services sector, confronts the harsh realities of workplace dynamics and corporate governance.
This episode of the Employee Survival Guide® dives deep into the intricate layers of employment law, exploring the nuances of discrimination in the workplace. With Palmer's remarkable rise during the pandemic and her subsequent claims of gender discrimination amidst corporate restructuring, we dissect the contrasting narratives that emerge from her experience and that of her former employer. What does this case reveal about the standards of proof required in employment disputes, and how do these legal frameworks impact employees' rights?
As we dissect the court's decision to deny summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial, we shed light on the broader implications for gender discrimination and equity in leadership roles. This episode is not just about one woman's fight against a hostile work environment; it's a rallying cry for all employees navigating the complexities of employment law, workplace challenges, and the ongoing fight against discrimination in all its forms.
Listeners will gain invaluable insights into the intricacies of severance negotiations, the importance of understanding employment contracts, and the critical role of employee advocacy in fostering a fair workplace culture. Whether you’re dealing with retaliation, sexual harassment, or simply striving for career advancement, this episode is packed with practical tips and legal advice for employees facing employment law issues.
Join us as we empower listeners with the knowledge to navigate their careers and advocate for their rights. From workplace dynamics to employee empowerment, we challenge the status quo and encourage a culture of transparency and accountability. Don't miss this chance to learn how to survive and thrive in your professional life, especially if you find yourself facing gender discrimination or any form of workplace injustice!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn.
We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will help other employees find the Employee Survival Guide.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Case Setup And Ground Rules
SPEAKER_01Welcome to another episode of the Employee Survival Guide, produced by Employment Attorney Mark Carey.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and today we are looking at something that honestly reads like a like a corporate thriller. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01It really does. I mean, we are examining a fascinating employment law conflict. The case is Palmer via Capital Core.
SPEAKER_00Right. And it's just this incredible clash. We're going to completely unpack the facts that are alleged in the plaintiff's really detailed amended complaint, and then look at the defendant's very staunch denials in their answer. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And ultimately we'll get to the federal court's critical decision to deny summary judgment, which basically sends this whole clash hurtling toward a trial.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Exactly. And you know, for anyone listening, whether you are an executive, maybe an HR professional, or really just any employee navigating corporate restructurings, this case matters.
SPEAKER_01Oh, absolutely. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00It is basically a masterclass in how courts have to evaluate these totally conflicting narratives, right? Like when does a corporate reorganization cross the line into unlawful discrimination and retaliation?
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right, right. And just a quick tone check before we jump in, we are looking strictly at the allegations from the complaint and the defenses from the answer.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Right. We aren't taking sides.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Exactly. We are impartially reporting the claims of both sides without taking a position on, you know, who is telling the ultimate truth here, because frankly, that is for a jury to decide.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Totally. So to really understand how this relationship fractured so badly, I mean we first have to understand how it began.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yeah, the corporate structure here is wild.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It is. So let's look at the plaintiff's background. Jennifer Palmer, she has this incredible rise in the financial services industry, specifically starting at a company called Gerber Finance
Palmer’s Rise Inside ABL
SPEAKER_00Inc. or GFI back in 2006.
SPEAKER_01Wow. So she was there for a long time.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, well over a decade. And she progressed from vice president to senior VP and then to president in 2013.
SPEAKER_01That's huge.
SPEAKER_00Right. And she was actually handpicked by the founder, Gerald Joseph. He was grooming her for leadership. But then in March 2017, eCapital Core acquires GFI.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so the big conglomerate swoops in.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And following Joseph's transition toward retirement over the next few years, Palmer officially becomes the CEO of GFI, which they later rebranded to eCapital Asset Base Lending, or ABL, in January 2020.
SPEAKER_01Wait, January 2020. I mean, we all know what happens two months after that.
SPEAKER_00Right. The pandemic hits. But according to her amended complaint, her track record during this time was just phenomenal.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. What kind of numbers are we talking about?
SPEAKER_00She alleges she grew ABL's portfolio by like 140% during the pandemic.
SPEAKER_01Wait, really? 140% while the world is shutting down?
SPEAKER_00Yeah. I mean, she claims she was handling these complex bankruptcies with minimal losses, and she's getting massive industry recognition, too.
SPEAKER_01Right. I saw that. Like top women in asset-based lending. She was the president of the Secured Finance Network. She's a star.
SPEAKER_00She really was. But here is the crucial detail for this whole case. She was the only female CEO among all of eCapital's subsidiaries.
SPEAKER_01Oh, wow. Okay, that sets the stage. But talk to me about the structural dynamic because she's CEO, but she's not totally independent, right?
SPEAKER_00Right, exactly. GFI or ABL and its parent company, eCapital, were heavily interconnected. So ABL's financials went upstream.
SPEAKER_01Right, to the corporate bosses. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Yes, specifically to eCapital executives like Marius Silvason, who was the CEO, and Stephen McDonald, the president. They exercised immense control over the overarching structure. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01So it's kind of like okay, imagine a highly acclaimed indie film studio being bought by a massive conglomerate. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Oh, that's a great way to put it. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Right. Like they have this director who is winning awards, making them a ton of money. If she's performing this well 140 percent growth in a pandemic, why would the parent company disrupt that?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah, it doesn't seem to make sense. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Are they just being overly bureaucratic or is there something more insidious at play here, you know, as Palmer alleges?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, see, the defendants have a completely different stance. In their answer, they completely reject her narrative.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell They deny this success.
SPEAKER_00Entirely. They actually argue the GFI struggled under her leadership regarding actual profits and its book of business.
SPEAKER_01Wait, how can you argue with 140% growth?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, portfolio growth doesn't always mean net profit, especially if risk or overhead is high. Yeah. So eCapital asserts that they simply required standard corporate consolidation. They needed to rebrand, streamline things, and they claim Palmer actively resisted all of that.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Interesting. Okay, so we have this structural backdrop established. Let's move into the specific, you know, day-to-day interactions.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah. Because Palmer claims these interactions reveal a pattern of gender discrimination, whereas the company says it was just standard executive oversight. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Right. So what does this shift in scrutiny look like?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, she alleges she was treated drastically differently than her male predecessor, Gerald Joseph.
Alleged Bias In Daily Oversight
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell, How so?
SPEAKER_00She claims that as soon as she took over in 2020, Silvasan instituted this really harsh scrutiny, like instantly demanding weekly pipeline reports, constantly questioning her ability, things she says he never did to Joseph.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay, but a boss being a micromanager isn't inherently illegal.
SPEAKER_00Right. No, it's not. But the complaint goes further, alleging a pattern of erasure and exclusion. Like Palmer says she was explicitly excluded from executive dinners in New York.
SPEAKER_01Which is where her office was.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And then there's this really striking allegation regarding outside counsel.
SPEAKER_01Well, right, the conflict of interest thing.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. So Palmer alleges she was forced by Silvason to fire this highly competent female outside counsel because of a supposed conflict of interest.
SPEAKER_01Which happens, sure.
SPEAKER_00It does. But then she claims eCapital turned around and waived a very similar conflict for a male attorney instead.
SPEAKER_01Oh, yeah, that looks bad.
SPEAKER_00And she also claims that eCapital leadership really resented her media presence. Like Silvason allegedly complained that she had a cult-like following.
SPEAKER_01A cult-like following, just because she was getting good press.
SPEAKER_00Right. And she even says eCapital deliberately omitted her from trade publication ads that were specifically celebrating women at the company.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Omitted their only female CEO from a women in leadership ad. That's wow.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. But I think the zero-sum gender allegation is maybe the most intense.
SPEAKER_01Yes. Tell the listener about the July 2020 Warren meeting.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell So Palmer's in this meeting, and she says she wants to increase ABL's exposure to women-owned businesses to 51%.
SPEAKER_01Which is a great market strategy.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. It's a huge growth sector. But she alleges Silva Son's response was to warn her not to ostracize men.
SPEAKER_01Ostracize men. Wow. So this raises a crucial question for you as a listener trying to analyze corporate behavior. How do courts actually differentiate between a demanding, micromanaging CEO who is just tough on everyone versus one whose actions are driven by discriminatory animus?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's the hardest part of employment law, honestly. And we have to remember the defendant's rebuttal here, they deny all of this.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell They just say it didn't happen that way.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Basically, yeah. They maintain that any heightened scrutiny was purely based on legitimate objective concerns about GFI's financial performance. They entirely deny any gender-based animus in their management decisions.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay, so the alleged microaggressions start to evolve into structural changes. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Right. And this transitions us into how eCapital's rebranding of GFI became the real battleground for what Palmer alleges was her demotion.
SPEAKER_01So enter Brian Cuddock.
SPEAKER_00Yes. Brian Cuddock. He's a male executive eCapital brings in. And Palmer alleges that in late 2021 or early 2022, she was basically
The Rebrand That Felt Like A Demotion
SPEAKER_00ambushed.
SPEAKER_01Ambushed how?
SPEAKER_00She says they hit her with this plan to force her into a co-CEO role with Cuddock for the newly rebranded entity.
SPEAKER_01After she's been running it for years.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. So she pushed back, naturally, and she called it what it looked like to her a demotion. But when she resisted, she claims Silvasan called her aggressive and confrontational.
SPEAKER_01Classic coded language, right? Like a man defending his territory is strong, but a woman is aggressive.
SPEAKER_00That's exactly the argument her lawyers are making. And even though she fought off the co-CEO title, she kept her title as CEO, she claims she was gutted of her actual power. She says she became a CEO in name only.
SPEAKER_01Right, let's talk about the wellness silo because this is fascinating.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, she alleges she was restricted to dealing only with wellness clients.
SPEAKER_01Which is traditionally seen as a stereotypically female industry.
SPEAKER_00It is. And the complaint alleges that while she was boxed into wellness, all the other big deals, the heavy industry, the massive manufacturing loans, went straight to Cuddock.
SPEAKER_01And there was a credit authority discrepancy, too, wasn't there?
SPEAKER_00A huge one. Cuddock allegedly had three million dollars in approval authority. Palmer, despite having way more experience in this specific firm, was supposedly capped at two million.
SPEAKER_01Which is crazy. And she also lost her team, right?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, she says her staff was rerouted to the parent company or to Cuddock. And the most glaring example she gives is that leadership allegedly blocked a massive $50 million oil and gas deal she brought in.
SPEAKER_01Okay, let me jump in here with an observation from a purely business perspective.
SPEAKER_00Go for it.
SPEAKER_01If you hire an expert who has been with a company for 16 years, why restrict her to just one niche industry and why block a $50 million deal?
SPEAKER_00It doesn't make intuitive sense.
SPEAKER_01Right. It seems totally counterproductive to revenue, unless, as the complaint alleges, the goal was intentional marginalization. Like if you want her to fail, you starve her of deals.
SPEAKER_00Right. That's her theory. But of course, the defendant's defense is completely opposite.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell, What do they say?
SPEAKER_00They say Cuddock was brought in simply as a managing director for a consolidated group. They vehemently deny that portfolios were ever split by gender or that Palmer was sidelined into a wellness silo.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So they claim it was just standard restructuring.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. They claim the restructuring was a legitimate business necessity to streamline the whole organization.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay, so the tension finally boils over into formal legal complaints, which leads us to the core retaliation claims.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, this is where things get really legally dangerous for the company.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right. Because how does an employer react when an executive officially threatens a lawsuit?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, according to Palmer, in March
Legal Complaints And Alleged Retaliation
SPEAKER_002022, she officially complained of discrimination through her legal counsel. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01That's a protected activity under the law.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yes, it is. And she alleges that almost instantly eCapita retaliated. They allegedly withdrew a pending employment agreement they were negotiating and replaced it with a highly punitive one.
SPEAKER_01And the terms of this new contract were brutal.
SPEAKER_00Very. It allegedly stripped her of standard indemnification, which essentially means threatening to sue her personally if she brought claims, and it demanded she blindly comply with any future organizational changes.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And they gave her an ultimatum, right?
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Sign it by April 30th or be fired.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell That is immense pressure. But the audited financials incident is what really stood out to me.
SPEAKER_00Oh, right. So as CEO, she has to sign audited financials, attesting that the company is in compliance with all laws.
SPEAKER_01But she's literally claiming they are breaking the law by discriminating against her.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. It's a trap. So she alleges she requested to speak with counsel before signing just to protect herself. And DCapital allegedly refused, called her disloyal, and stripped her of her signing authority entirely.
SPEAKER_01Just for asking to talk to a lawyer.
SPEAKER_00That's what she claims. And then the final escalation, she files her state lawsuit on September 8, 2022.
SPEAKER_01The point of no return.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And she claims that Stephen McDonald, the president, actually viewed the lawsuit itself as an act of insubordination.
SPEAKER_01You can't call a protected lawsuit insubordination.
SPEAKER_00Well, she says they did. And then on December 5, 2022, she was fired.
SPEAKER_01Just a few months later.
SPEAKER_00Right. ECapital claimed they were eliminating her position, but she was immediately replaced by Cuddock.
SPEAKER_01This sequence of events is wild. I mean, she complains, the contract gets drastically worse. She sues, she gets fired months later, the timing seems incredibly tight. How does an employer even begin to defend that timeline?
SPEAKER_00It's tough. But eCapital's rebuttal is that the revised contract was based on her ongoing performance in rebranding issues, not retaliation.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell They just decouple it from the complaint.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. They argue the ultimate termination was simply the final step of the long-planned corporate restructuring that rendered her redundant. They say it was completely unrelated to her protected activity.
SPEAKER_01So we have these two completely incompatible versions of reality. And this brings us directly to Federal Judge Dale Ehoe's courtroom and the motion for summary judgment.
SPEAKER_00Right. Because before a jury ever gets to hear this, the judge has to decide if the case even survives.
SPEAKER_01So for the listener, let's explain understanding summary judgment.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's a critical legal hurdle. The court's job here
Why Summary Judgment Gets Denied
SPEAKER_00is not to decide who is telling the truth.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right. They aren't weighing the credibility of the witnesses yet.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. The judge is asking, if we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, so assuming her story is true for a moment, could a reasonable jury possibly find in her favor?
SPEAKER_01It's kind of like an audition.
SPEAKER_00How so?
SPEAKER_01Well, the plaintiff isn't trying to win the Oscar today, you know. She just has to prove she belongs in the movie. And the judge is essentially saying, Yes, you've shown enough evidence to get in front of the cameras, which is the jury.
SPEAKER_00I love that analogy. That's exactly it. And to run that audition, the court uses the McDonnell Douglas framework.
SPEAKER_01Right. This is the big one for employment law.
SPEAKER_00It is. It's a three-step burden shifting analysis used for Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law Claims.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Step One being the prima facie case, right?
SPEAKER_00Correct. Step one is the prima facie case of discrimination.
SPEAKER_01Which means on its face.
SPEAKER_00Yes. The plaintiff has to prove four elements. She's in a protected class, she's qualified, she suffered an adverse action, and there's an inference of discrimination.
SPEAKER_01And the court found she met this pretty easily, didn't they?
SPEAKER_00They did. They called this burden minimal. I mean, she was continuously promoted for years, so she's qualified. And she established that inference of discrimination because she was replaced by a man Cuddock, and she was the only female executive in her tier.
SPEAKER_01But e Capital fought back on that with the comparator debate.
SPEAKER_00Right, fiercely.
SPEAKER_01Meaning they couldn't be compared to her legally.
SPEAKER_00Right. They said Joseph was from a different time period and had more experience, and Cuddock managed a differently sized unit. They basically wanted exact clones.
SPEAKER_01But the court rejected that.
SPEAKER_00Entirely. The court stated they shared enough commonalities to be considered similarly situated for this early stage of litigation.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so she passes the audition, she meets step one.
SPEAKER_00Right. So the burden shifts to the employer for step two. ECapital has to offer legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions.
SPEAKER_01Which they did.
SPEAKER_00They did. They cited redundancy, poor performance, and insubordination regarding the rebrand.
SPEAKER_01So then it bounces back to Palmer for step three?
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Step three is pretext. She has to prove their reasons are just a smokescreen.
SPEAKER_01Defeating the employer's defenses. How did she do that?
SPEAKER_00The court ruled Palmer provided enough evidence of pretext for a jury to decide. Specifically, she brought in evidence of her increasing profits, which contradicts the poor performance claim.
SPEAKER_01Oh, right. The math didn't add up for the company's defense.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Plus, she pointed out their contradictory explanations for her firing, like was it structural redundancy or was it insubordination? When a company changes its story, courts see that as a red flag.
SPEAKER_01Right. And what about the retaliation standard?
SPEAKER_00The court breaks down the retaliation ruling by looking at temporal proximity.
SPEAKER_01Because the timeline was so squished together.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Withdrawing the contract immediately after the complaint, and then firing her less than three months after the lawsuit. The judge found that was strong enough to infer, but for causation.
SPEAKER_01Wow. And the company tried a bunch of specific legal defenses to get out of this, right? Let's talk about dismantling specific corporate defenses, starting with the same actor defense.
SPEAKER_00Oh, this is a classic. ECapital argued, hey, Silvason was the one who hired her. Why would he discriminate when firing her?
SPEAKER_01Which logically
Corporate Defenses And Personal Liability
SPEAKER_01kind of makes sense. If I hire you, I probably don't have a bias against you.
SPEAKER_00It does make sense, but the court noted this isn't always just positive in Title VII cases. And more importantly, Palmer disputes that Sylvison even hired her in the first place. He says Gerald Joseph did, so it's a disputed fact.
SPEAKER_01Okay. What about the after-acquired evidence thing?
SPEAKER_00Right. So eCapital claimed during discovery they found out she used profanity in some emails.
SPEAKER_01Oh, come on.
SPEAKER_00I know. They argued, well, we would have fired her anyway for swearing, so she shouldn't get damages.
SPEAKER_01But everyone swears in high-stakes finance.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And the court shot this down because eCapital showed absolutely no proof that they ever fire anyone else for swearing. Plus, Palmer claimed Sylvison swore constantly. That's just hypocritical. Totally. Then they tried the good faith compliance defense.
SPEAKER_01Is that where they just point to the HR handbook?
SPEAKER_00Pretty much. They argued that because they had anti-discrimination policies on paper, they should be shielded from punitive damages. And the judge said The judge ruled that having a policy on paper doesn't magically protect a company if a jury ultimately finds they acted with malicious intent in reality.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay, this last part really caught my attention. The aiding and abetting claims, the individual liability.
SPEAKER_00Well, this is massive.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Palmer actually sued the individual executives. McDonald, the general counsel, the board member.
SPEAKER_01Well, they tried to get out of it, obviously.
SPEAKER_00Right. They claim they were just doing their administrative jobs as board members or counsel, but the court kept them in the case.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Wait, so if you are the general counsel or board member at a company, does this ruling mean you can be personally on the hook just for signing off on a termination if you know there's a pending discrimination lawsuit?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell, Jr. Yes, it absolutely does. The court ruled that because they exercised authority over her termination, while fully aware of her discrimination complaints, they could be held personally liable for aiding and abetting the retaliation.
SPEAKER_01That is terrifying for C-suite executives.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It really is. It pierces the corporate veil.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Wow. Okay, so we've covered a ton of ground today.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Yeah. So just to synthesize the vast journey we've just taken, we've looked really closely at the facts of the amended complaint. You know, a female CEO alleging systematic marginalization, the stripping of her authority, and retaliatory firing.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And on the flip side, we looked at the company side.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell
The Line Between Reorg And Bias
SPEAKER_00Right. And the court's definitive decision denying summary judgment, which basically rules that a jury must untangle these vastly different narratives.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Exactly. Which leaves you, the listener, with a final thought to ponder. This case really forces us to ask where the line is drawn between a ruthless standard corporate consolidation and unlawful systemic retaliation.
SPEAKER_00That's a blurry line.
SPEAKER_01It is. When a company restructures, does it inherently create a smokescreen for discrimination, or is it just the harsh reality of business? As you go into your own workplaces, look at the organizational charts and the reasons given for sudden reassignments.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, pay attention to the why.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. Because you have to wonder how often does the paperwork perfectly match the messy reality on the ground and what happens when those two things collide?
SPEAKER_00That's the real question.
SPEAKER_01It is. Thank you for joining us for this discussion. We'll catch you next time.