they were not prepared to prove but for causation, and, you know, we contended that is wrong under nasir and we don't think this complaint actually passes pleading standards under any standard as we made clear, but, of course, you know, it is also the case that we have cases like gross and nasir in which it is evident from the record that some consideration of the protected factor was made in the employment context. at the end, you know, the jury still had to be instructed that it had to determine whether that was a determinative factor in the decision making. in all of these cases the court has already determined that the fact finder will have to make the decision as gross said whether that factor not only played a role, but also had as justice thomas put it in gross, a determinative effect in the decision making. >> mr. estrada, you said that the respondents here continue to say that they don't have to prove but for causation. i'm a little bit confused about that point, and i guess this is for mr. chemerinsky to think about as well, but in your reply brief, you make the good points tha