Employee Survival Guide® - Walsh v. Fitch Solutions: When Culture Collides With Disability Rights

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!A top performer with a life-threatening migraine condition built a 15-year career, earned awards, and worked remotely with a documented accommodation—until a post-merger culture shift demanded office presence and everything changed. We walk you through the allegation-filled timeline: the hot leads routed to younger men in the New York office, the confrontation that preceded a stroke doctors tied to job stress, and the series of decisions that, the complaint says, turned a medical safeguard into a career liability.We dig into the mechanics of discrimination and retaliation claims: how account assignments can become tools of pretext, why a disputed Citadel loss matters years later, and what it means when a PIP leans on contested narratives despite recent high performance. You’ll hear how the continuing violations doctrine can bridge older incidents into a timely hostile environment claim, and why plausibility at the motion-to-dismiss stage hinges on a minimal inference—not courtroom proof. The distinction between granting an ADA accommodation and honoring it in practice sits at the core: resources withheld for remote staff, an ultimatum to attend training in person despite written permission, and the message that office presence equals opportunity.We also examine leadership statements that allegedly acknowledged past bias, rapid promotions for younger male colleagues, and the juxtaposition of a 2023 sales excellence award with a 2024 PIP. The legal stakes are high: timeliness defenses, comparator debates, and whether penalizing a stroke survivor’s accommodation can be seen as extreme and outrageous conduct. Ultimately, we ask a broader question many workplaces face now: when office-first culture collides with health, is performance enough to protect an employee whose life depends on remote work?If this deep dive helped you see the issues more clearly, follow the show, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review telling us where you stand on accommodations versus culture. Your take might shape a future mailbag. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. 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.

Hey, it's Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more. Welcome to the deep dive. This is the place where we, you know, we take these really dense, complex source materials, court filings, chronologies, all that legal jargon, and we pull out the critical insights you need. need to be immediately well-informed. That's right. And our mission today is really deep exploration of a major employment lawsuit. It's a case that, you know, it serves as a powerful illustration of the challenges facing employees, especially long-tenured ones, when a company culture just shifts dramatically after an acquisition. Absolutely. We are navigating a case here that weaves together claims

of age, sex, and disability discrimination. And retaliation on top of that. Right. Retaliation, and all set against a backdrop of, what, almost two decades of employment at Fitch Solutions and Fitch Group. Yeah, and for this dive, we're really treating the plaintiff's complaint as our primary source. It lays out this almost minute-by-minute account of what she describes as a systematic campaign against her. Okay, so let's set the stage immediately. Who are the parties here? The plaintiff is Kathleen Megan Walsh. She had a very significant 15-year career at various Fitch subsidiaries, starting way back in October of 2009. And at the time of her termination, which she alleges was wrongful, she was 58 years old.

Correct. And the defendants are Fitch Solutions and Fitch Group. The lawsuit treats them as a single joint employer, which basically just simplifies things by saying they were acting as one entity. So the core of this whole thing, as you read it in the documents, it isn't just one bad day at the office. No, not at all. It's the allegation of a continuing pattern of discrimination. She's asserting this pattern was driven by her gender, her age, and really crucial. a severe, documented medical disability. And this disability is central to the whole story. We're talking about migraines so serious they're described as life-threatening. Exactly.

And that disability required a remote work accommodation that she alleges management grew, well, openly hostile toward over time. And the legal context here is just as important as the facts, right? The defense, Fitch, they've come out swinging with a motion to dismiss, what is that trying to achieve? A motion to dismiss, or MTD, is essentially a technical knockout attempt. Okay. The defense is arguing that even if you accept every single thing the plaintiff says is true, all the name calling, the alleged account sabotage, the falsified PIP, that even with all that, the facts still fail to meet the required legal standard. So they're saying some of it is too old. It's time barred.

Right. It falls outside the statute of limitations. And for the rest, they argue it just lacks what the law calls plausibility. They're saying it doesn't cross the threshold to even proceed to the discovery phase, which is where things get really. expensive for a company. I see. So we have these two parallel narratives. On one hand, this highly personal, really traumatic chronology from Mrs. Walsh. And on the other, Fitch's very surgical legal effort to say none of it is legally sufficient to even be heard. That's the tension. And our mission today is to unpack that. We're going to focus on the specific acts of alleged discrimination

and the personal costs to really understand why these facts might just overcome that defense strategy. Perfect. So where we begin? Let's start with the foundation. The plaintiff's long history with the company and the critical health condition that really becomes the flashpoint for this whole conflict. Right. So part one, this really anchors the entire case in her history and her specific health condition. She started back in 2009, solid professional background. But the source documents, they spend a lot of time on her medical history. Explain the nature of her disability. Well, the documents are very clear that Mrs. Walsh has a long history of severe migraines. And, you know, this is not just a common headache. Right. The complaint stresses the medical severity.

It states these migraines may result in stroke and death. And their frequency, their intensity, is directly proportional to the amount of job stress she experiences. So job stress is literally life-threatening for her. That's the medical foundation of the case. It's a staggering detail. And it immediately sets this case apart from a lot of other disability claims. So how did the company initially respond to this known, very severe condition. Initially, they did the right thing. They accommodated it. When her office

in Railway in Connecticut closed in September 2017, she was offered and received a full-time remote work accommodation. And the complaint is specific that this wasn't just for a convenience. Not at all. It explicitly states the accommodation was given specifically due to her debilitating migraines. It was a medically necessary arrangement, period. And the documents even go into detail about why the commute itself was so dangerous for her. Yes, and this is crucial for the ADA claim down the line. The accommodation was necessary because of specific environmental triggers, they could induce seizures, stroke, and the severe migraines. And they name one specifically, right, the train. They do. The most vivid example is the flashing white strobe light on the doors of the Metro North

train. The complaint argues that due to her neurological sensitivity, this basically eliminated her from taking Metro North as a commuting option. And city traffic pose similar risks. Similar life-threatening risks. So her accommodation wasn't a choice for flexibility. It was a necessary safeguard to protect her life. So at this point, she's secure in her role. She's performing well.

And she has this protected medically necessary accommodation. Then the corporate structure changes. Right. Fitch acquired her subsidiary, a company called Covenant Review, in July of 2018. And at first, it was sort of a grace period. Things stayed the same? For a little while, yes. Volcrum, the parent company, was operating independently.

They were hitting their targets, so Fitch mostly left them alone. But by 2019, Fitch took a much more active, hands-on interest in integration. And with that integration came a culture shift. A huge one, a distinct cultural push towards an in-office presence. This idea that you had to be physically present in the New York City office to be a real part of the team. And that cultural mandate immediately clashed with Mrs. Walton. she's medical reality. And the documents suggest this is when the environment turned toxic for her.

It's marked by the introduction of a new manager, Manish Agarwal. Yes, he took over account management and sales, and the specific allegations of sex discrimination under his leadership are, well, they're pretty stark. So what are they? What does the complaint say? It really paints a picture of deliberate systemic favoritism. The complaint states that Mr. Agarwal, who controlled all the account assignments and leads, systematically gave the quality hot laid prospect.

to the other, male account managers and sales reps who worked out of the NYC office. So she was sidelined. She alleges she was clearly viewed as a disfavored female, and she was forced to spend huge amounts of time just prospecting for her own leads or relying on favors from colleagues like a guy named Steve Miller just to get opportunities. And if she did find success despite this alleged sidelining, how did Agarwal react to that? According to the complaint, her success only made his hostility worse. Instead of recognizing her work, he allegedly belittle her achievements, saying she just got lucky. Wow. He implies her success had, you know, nothing to do with skill or hard work, which just reinforces this idea that she didn't belong in his boys club.

This type of commentary, repeated over and over, is really central to a hostile work environment claim. And it goes beyond just unpleasantness. The complaint details an instance with another colleague. Yes, the anecdote involving Shannon McGrath. It's included to show that this wasn't just a pleasant. about Mrs. Walsh, that it was systemic. It details how McGrath allegedly had to flee to the bathroom to cry because of Agarwal's verbal abuse.

And senior management knew about this. Crucially, yes. The complaint alleges this behavior was known to senior management, but was allowed to continue. This suggests the hostile environment was, well, tolerated by the organization. The hostility then allegedly peaked with a face-to-face confrontation in early 2019. Yes, a very frightening one. according to the complaint. He allegedly blocked her exit from a conference room he's described as fuming, and he explicitly said to her, you have no talent, Meg, it is just pure luck. And she says she was very frightened by this. She did. She immediately complained to her colleague, Steve Miller, about the harassment and the direct impact it was having on her health.

And this is where the medical necessity of her accommodation just collides head on with the job stress. This is the most critical turning point in the personal narrative. The relentless stress and hostility, as she details, resulted in a series of severe migraines, which culminated in Mrs. Walsh having a stroke in May of 2019. A stroke. A stroke. She needed a four to five day hospital stay and subsequently had a Medtronic L-I-N-Q heart monitor implanted in her chest. And her Dodgers specifically linked this life-wreatening event to her job? Correct. They explicitly cited job stress as a major contributing factor. And yet, despite this, a stroke, hospitalization, a heart monitor, The complaint alleges she felt this extreme pressure to return to work quickly.

Out of fear of losing her job. Exactly. She was afraid that if you took the leave she was entitled to, she'd be pushed out, especially given her manager's attitude. And what was his focus while she was literally in the hospital? Mr. Agarwal's alleged response was just ruthlessly transactional. His only documented communication during her hospital stay was pushing her to get back to work to close close deals. Unbelievable.

And this incident, according to the plaintiff, unequivocally establishes that management knew about the acute, life-threatening nature of her disability and its direct link to the stress they were creating. Yet they prioritized revenue over her health. That sets a profoundly disturbing foundation for what comes next. So let's move into part two and talk about how this alleged pattern of discrimination just kept escalating. Right. So the environment changes again. There's a full merger. New management comes in, specifically Bo Kuhn and Adam Spahn. But the core conflict, the penalty for working remotely, the favoritism, it allegedly just continues in more systemic ways.

The complaint highlights an interaction in 2021 where she tries to engage with this new management, but the conversation goes right back to the toxic culture. Yes, she met with Bo Kuhn, who was the global head of sales, and she was eager to discuss her future. But the conversation quickly turned back to the environment under Agarwal. What did Kuhn say? Kuhn allegedly volunteered that Agarwal was a liar and manipulator who really did not like women, especially successful, strong women.

And she then asked Mrs. Walsh for details about how he had obstructed her business and favored male employees. So this is her new boss basically confirming she was aware of the history of gender discrimination. That's the plaintiff's claim, yes, that senior management was fully aware. Which brings us to a crucial moment in December 2021 with Adam Spahn, who was Coon's manager. What did he tell her about her accommodation? This is what the plaintiff views as a direct threat to her career. He allegedly told Mrs. Walsh that her medically necessary remote work arrangement would be detrimental to her career and mobility at the firm. And she explained the health risks again, the stroke, the migraines?

She did. She laid it all out. But he just kept pushing the need for in-office presence. And her response, which is quoted in the documents, was just, my life is more important to me. That exchange really marks the moment where the accommodation seems to shift from a necessity to a liability in the company's eyes. And the threat, she argues, was for. followed very quickly by adverse actions. What happened? Just a month later, January 2022, her compensation structure was changed. She lost this annuity-like 2% commission she got on renewals for deals she'd closed.

It was a significant long-term financial hit. And they shifted her role, too. Yes, her role was allegedly shifted away from high-stakes sales toward less lucrative account maintenance. It's a classic allegation of role degradation that you often see tied to a protected staff. So a financial and professional penalty right after she refused to compromise her health. And this alleged penalty continued in smaller daily ways under her new supervisor, Joseph Tafaro. Right. The Cheat Sheets incident in February 2024 is a really good example of this alleged penalty for being remote. What happened there? Mrs. Walsh had actually come into the office, trying to be the team player, and she noticed these helpful, laminated training resources on Tafaro's desk.

Competitor info, product advantages, that sort of thing. Things she'd need to do her job well. Exactly. And when she asked for a copy, Tafarro allegedly responded publicly in front of everyone. If you were in the office, you would have gotten this and other items like it. Wow.

So that's a direct link between denying a necessary resource and her remote status. A very direct link. And she describes feeling disadvantaged, embarrassed, publicly shamed. It just solidified her fear that she was missing out on critical information because she couldn't risk her health

to be in the office every day. This pressure around her accommodation then allegedly culminates in this direct ultimatum later that year, the August 2024 training incident. And this is legally key. It is. This is a critical anchor point for her legal argument. Fitch held a sales training. And the documents show an email went out explicitly saying that remote workers and Connecticut employees do not need to come in. So she had it in writing.

She did. Yet when she attended remotely on the first day, Tafaro allegedly messaged her claiming senior management was, was extremely upset and demanding she explained why she wasn't there. He insisted she had better be there in person the next day. So she's a stroke survivor. She's specifically trying to avoid the commute. And she has written permission to be remote. But she's being forced to choose between her life and her job.

That is the core of the allegation. And fearing she'd be fired, she arranged a car service and went in for day two, but immediately escalated to HR. And what did HR find? HR later confirmed to Faro had simply missed that part of the email. And they apologized. But the damage was done. This incident is pleaded as a timely act of retaliation and harassment tied directly to her disability,

which helps make the entire hostile environment claim timely. So beyond the disability claims, the complaint also details claims of age and sex discrimination, alleging a clear boys club culture. What are the specific examples there? Mrs. Walsh argues she saw healthy young men who worked in the NYC office with less experience, getting all the best clients and opportunities while she was being marginalized. And she names names. Who are the key examples of this alleged favoritism?

Well, first, Christopher Salisbury, a younger male employee, was selected for this exclusive all-male sales specialist team. Bo Kuhn allegedly called him one of her favorites. Okay. Second, and maybe even more striking, is Harry Broadbent. He's described as a young man in his 30s who got promoted at lightning speed, from account manager to sales director in 2024, then says. senior director in 2025, and his rise is used as a direct contrast to her simultaneous harassment

and sidelining. Let's take a quick break. It's Mark Kim. We have a new product for you. It's called the Employees Survival Guide or Employees Survival.com. And it's a site that you can obtain PDF products that I've created myself. It's spending too many hours, way too many, researching and writing about it, for example, called the Performance Improvement Plan or beating them.

And the second one, about negotiating severance negotiation agreements to the most important topics that we see in terms of the web traffic and podcast traffic we have. So check out Employeeservival.com and see if this can try to help you and you don't need an attorney to use it. Thank you. The documents also include an anecdote about technical help,

suggesting different treatment based on age and gender. Yes, the example involves a Mr. Nugent, an older man in his 60s. When he was flagged for some data entry errors, a minor technical issue, Adam Spahn immediately jumped in to help him, saying don't worry, Nuge, I'll be your wingman anytime,

I'll put it in for you. And the implication is that this level of personalized protective help wasn't available to an older woman like her. Yes, the implication, yes, it was extended selectively. So these different threads, the role degradation, the resource denial, the favoritism, they all converge on the issue of

account sabotage, which is what sets up the firing. Let's talk about the Citadel transaction. Right. By 2024, she alleges her book of business was intentionally degraded, so bad, in fact, that out of 67 clients, 41 had no growth opportunity and eight were known cancellations. The Citadel situation is the prime example of alleged sabotage designed to make her performance look bad. Explain this because it seems complicated. The client loss happened after she managed the account. And that's the whole point of the pretext allegation. Citadel was her client briefly in 2022. In 2023, the account moved to the hedge fund team under Mr. Broadbent.

The guys who got promoted rapidly. The very same. When Citadel later decided to consolidate subscriptions, the financial hit for that loss needed to be assigned to someone's book. And Mr. Broadbent allegedly didn't want it on his. So management just arbitrarily assigned the financial hit to Mrs. Walsh's 2023 book, even though she didn't service the client that year. That's what the complaint says. management acknowledged it really comes down to he said she said but they made the decision to place the substantial loss squarely on her metrics for a year after she had the account

this immediately set her up for failure and the pressure didn't stop there adam spawn allegedly used this to bully her yes the complaint alleges spawn made up a story to turn a colleague against her and then bullied and threatened plaintiff by saying if plaintiff did not come clean and tell the truth it would get really bad for her. It's this combination of the arbitrary penalty and the psychological pressure that's so central to her claim. It is because this disputed Citadel story is later resurrected as the main justification for firing her. Which leads us directly into part three, the retaliatory termination itself. And the plaintiff alleges all of these prior actions were just setting the stage for the final weapon, which was the performance improvement plant, the PIP. Right. She was issued this PIP on

October 11, 24. And this is a huge deal. because it was the first negative performance review she'd had in her entire 15-year career. And the timing is absolutely critical. Why? Because it came right after she'd engaged in protected activity. Just before the PIP was issued, Mrs. Walsh had requested to convert a business trip to Texas into Zoom calls, citing her increased migraine stress and fear of another stroke. So she makes a request related to her disability, and boom, she gets a PIP. The proximity makes a very strong case for retaliation.

Let's get into the PIP's content because she alleges the two examples they used Citadel and another one, BTG Pactual, were just outright fabrications. Starting with Citadel, yes. The PIP resurrected that disputed 2022 account loss and presented it as if it were relevant to her performance in 2024. And the manager issuing the PIP, Tafaro, had nothing to do with the account back then. So it proves the PIP was just a way to formalize old disputed penalties. That's her argument, yes. And the second transaction, BTG Pactual, was allegedly even worse because she claims she actually saved the client, but the PIP twisted it into a negative. The PIP claims she proposed terms that were below acceptable commercial levels. But her rebuttal explains the reality.

BTG was about to cancel. She and a colleague salvaged the relationship by expanding services to other teams in other countries, an action that Tafaro himself had approved. She says the PIP deliberately mischaracterized her resourcefulness as poor judgment. So we have this allegedly false PIP being issued, even though by other measures, she was still a top performer. The contradiction is stark. The complaint notes that despite all this alleged sabotage, she received an award for achieving sales excellence in 2023. The year before. The year before. And she maintained very respectable sales commissions through the end of 2024, even while she was supposedly on this PIP. It raises the fundamental question of pretext. The stage is set for the final act. She gets the PIP and she refuses to.

to sign it. What was her final protected activity before she was fired? On November 8, 2024, she submitted a detailed written response, refusing to sign. And in that rebuttal, she explicitly refutes the contents and states her concern that she was being targeted for being an older woman who works remotely. So she put HR on notice. She was flagging the discrimination. Clearly. And then less than a month later, she followed up with another medical request. The FMLA leave. Yes. On December 5,

Due to the sustained stress and severe migraines, she provided paperwork for intermittent FMLA leave going into the new year. Her doctors had advised it to prevent her from being forced to work through a stroke-inducing migraine. And the termination came almost immediately after that. Swiftly. On January 6, 2025, barely a month after her FMLA request, she was called into a virtual meeting with HR and Tafaro, who wasn't even her manager anymore.

He nervously explained she was being terminated for the PIP. But the plaintiff claims the PIP was expired by this. It was a 45-day plan. It should have expired around November 23rd of the prior year. The termination happened well after that. She alleges its only purpose was to manufacture a justification, a pretext for retaliation against her complaint and her FMLA request. It's a meticulous and disturbing chronology, so now we have to turn to the legal battlefield. How did the defendants, faced with this narrative, try to use technical arguments to just get the case thrown out? And that's the pivot. The motion to dismiss is a tactical move designed to stop her from getting to discovery, where she could get the internal emails, the performance reviews of the guys who got promoted, all of that. So let's start with their first argument, timeliness. The claim that most of the stuff is just too old. Right. For federal discrimination laws like Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, you generally have 300 days from the adverse action to file a charge. The defendants correctly point out that most of this Agawal's harassment in 2019, the role change in 2022, happened years before that 300-day window.

So they're arguing those events are legally irrelevant. That's their argument. But the plaintiff's legal team uses a very powerful tool to bridge that gap. Which is what? It's called the Continuing Violations Doctrine. The idea is that for a hostile work environment claim, the harassment isn't a series of separate isolated incidents. It's one single, continuous, unlawful. employment practice. Like a chain where you only need the last link to fall inside the window?

That's a perfect analogy. Exactly. If the last link, the termination, the August 2024 training incident, the October 24 PIP is timely, the plaintiff can pull that entire chain of historical harassment back into court. And how do they make sure those older discreet acts like the Citadel counting trick stay relevant? They remain relevant as critical evidence of motive and pretext. The employer explicitly resurrected that stale disputed citadel event and used it in the timely PIP and termination. They can't rely on old conduct to justify a new decision and then argue that old conduct should just vanish from the legal record. That makes sense. You can't have it both ways. Okay, let's move to their second argument, insufficient pleading, or that her claims aren't plausible.

This is about the quality of the facts. The defendants argues she didn't provide enough detail to plausibly support a finder. of discrimination. They complained that her claims about younger male colleagues weren't good enough because she didn't prove they were similarly situated in all material respects. That sounds like they're trying to make her prove her case before it's even started. You're absolutely right. They're demanding too much specificity too early. The plaintiff's rebuttal stressed that the legal standard at this early stage is much lower. You don't need to prove the case yet. You just need to provide enough facts to raise a minimal inference

of discriminatory intent. So what facts, when you look at them all together, create that inference? It's the whole sequence of events. The known history of hostility towards women under Agarwal, the new management being aware of that history. The explicit threat about her accommodation being detrimental, the role degradation, the open favoritism for younger male favorites, and finally, using a false PIP to fire her weeks after she requested FMLA.

It's the cumulative weight of all of it. Exactly. The court is supposed to read the complaint holistically. The combination of all those facts is what they argue satisfies that minimal pleading standard. Okay, finally, let's cover their third argument, which targets the disability and emotional distress claims. Right. On failure to accommodate, their claim is pretty simple. We granted her the remote accommodation, so the claim fails. But that seems to miss the whole point of her story. It does, and the plaintiff makes a crucial distinction here. The difference between granting an accommodation on paper and honoring it. in practice. What's the argument there? The argument is that the accommodation was systematically undermined and penalized. They weren't revoking her remote status, but they were allegedly

conditioning her success, her access to resources on her giving it up. The cheat sheets incident, the detrimental to your career threat, the training ultimatum, it's all evidence of a functional failure to accommodate. And for the emotional distress claims, why did the defense say those should fail. They argued the conduct wasn't extreme and outrageous enough to meet the very high legal standard. I mean, we're talking behavior that has to be beyond the bounds of civilized decency. So how did she counter that? They argued that the severity of the alleged harm, which led to a documented stroke, a heart monitor, vision loss, elevates the conduct beyond mere workplace unpleasantness. Systematically penalizing a stroke survivor, knowing that job stress is life-threatening

for her, they argued that is extreme and outrageous enough to defend. defeat the motion. This has been an incredible deep dive. It reveals this meticulous narrative of alleged systemic discrimination, all tied directly to a corporate merger and a shift in culture that prioritized being in the office above all else. It really does. And the core legal takeaway for anyone watching these kinds of disputes is the power of continuity and pretext. This case shows how seemingly isolated slights when you view them as part of one continuous hostile pattern can form a powerful legal argument that overcomes those statute of limitations hurdles. And it is just remarkable how the documents force you to confront the contradiction between

her performance and what she alleges was happening. She gets a sales excellence award in 2023. A commendation for high performance. And that's completely ignored in favor of a PIP, allegedly based on bogus metrics less than a year later. It raises a really profound question that so many people are facing now. We talk about remote work for flexibility, but this case asks something. different. When a company's leadership aggressively favors an in-office culture, how vulnerable does a high-performing employee become when their remote arrangement is necessitated by a life-threatening

disability? Is performance alone enough to protect you when your medical needs conflict with a cultural mandate? That's a deeply unsettling and important thought. It really highlights the tension between corporate culture and the law. Thank you for walking us through all the complex allegations and legal arguments here. My pleasure. And to you, the learner, thank you for joining us on this deep dive. Stay informed, and we'll catch you on the next one. If you like the Employees Survival Guide, I'd really encourage you to leave a review.

We try really hard to produce information to you that's informative, that's timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not. That's good, right? I'll keep it up. I'll keep up the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you. If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to m-C-A-R-U-I at C-A-P-C-Law.com. That's capclaw.com.