What happens when corporate loyalty turns into a loyalty trap, especially when your health (Cancer) is on the line? In this gripping episode of Employee Survival Guide®, Mark Carey and his co-host delve into the harrowing case of Oladokun Owoyemi, a former Deutsche Bank employee who faced severe discrimination and retaliation after being diagnosed with cancer. As we peel back the layers of this alarming story, we reveal how high-performing employees often find themselves ensnared in the illusion of corporate loyalty, believing their hard work and dedication will safeguard them in their most vulnerable moments.
Owoyemi’s journey exposes the stark disparities in treatment that can arise in the workplace, particularly for Black employees facing discrimination. As he sought reasonable accommodations for his cancer diagnosis, he encountered bureaucratic barriers that highlighted a troubling reality: corporations often view employees as liabilities rather than valuable assets. This episode serves as a crucial reminder that understanding your rights is paramount in navigating the complex legal landscape of employment law.
Throughout the discussion, we emphasize the critical importance of documentation, awareness of legal timelines, and recognizing orchestrated efforts by employers to force resignations. With actionable advice, we equip listeners with the tools they need to advocate for themselves in a hostile work environment. From understanding employment contracts to negotiating severance packages, we cover the essential skills required for surviving and thriving in the modern workplace.
As we unpack the challenges faced by Owoyemi, we also explore broader themes of workplace discrimination, including race discrimination, disability rights, and retaliation claims. This episode is not just a cautionary tale; it’s a call to action for all employees to empower themselves and stand up against workplace injustices. Tune in to gain insights into the often-overlooked realities of corporate culture and learn how to navigate employment disputes with confidence.
Join us for this eye-opening episode of Employee Survival Guide®, where we challenge the status quo and advocate for employee rights. Whether you’re dealing with workplace harassment, discrimination, or simply seeking to understand your legal protections, this podcast is your essential guide to navigating the complexities of employment law and fostering a healthier work environment.
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.
Transcript:
Speaker #0
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.
Speaker #1
Welcome to the Employee Survival Guide, produced by employment attorney Mark Carey.
Speaker #2
Glad to be here for this one.
Speaker #1
Yeah. And today is Tuesday, September 29th, 2026. And, you know. I want you to just imagine for a second working 70 hours a week for a massive global bank.
Speaker #2
Sounds exhausting already.
Speaker #1
Right. And then getting diagnosed with a severe form of cancer.
Speaker #2
Oh, man.
Speaker #1
But the real kicker is realizing your employer isn’t trying to figure out how to support you. They’re actually figuring out how to run down the legal clock to get rid of you.
Speaker #2
It’s a terrifying realization. And unfortunately, I mean, it happens way more often than people want to believe. That whole corporate safety net, it’s largely an illusion.
Speaker #1
It really is. And we’re unpacking that illusion today. Okay, let’s unpack this. We have this set of legal documents fresh out of the Southern District of New York.
Speaker #2
And they read less like a standard employment dispute and honestly more like a psychological thriller.
Speaker #1
Exactly. We’re looking at the amended complaint filed by Oladukun Owonji against his former employer, Deutsche Bank.
Speaker #2
Alongside the opinion in order that literally just came out yesterday, right?
Speaker #1
Yeah, yesterday, September 28, 2026, issued by Judge Jennifer L. Rashan. And our mission today is to look strictly at the facts from the employee’s perspective.
Speaker #2
Because that’s how you expose these very specific patterns of employer behavior. The ones that kick in the second you become, you know, medically inconvenient.
Speaker #1
Medically inconvenient. Yeah, that’s the perfect way to phrase it. And more importantly, we are going to arm you, the listener, with actionable takeaways so you know exactly how to protect yourself. if the corporate machinery ever turns on you.
Speaker #2
Which is so crucial. And I think the foundational element of this entire situation is Owo Yemi’s baseline relationship with the bank.
Speaker #1
Let’s get into that. Who was he to them?
Speaker #2
Well, we’re talking about a Black man who dedicated over nine years of his life to Deutsche Bank. I mean, he had climbed all the way to assistant vice president in the anti-financial crime division.
Speaker #1
Right, so this is not some peripheral role. He was a critical regulatory liaison. Exactly. He’s dealing directly with the Federal Reserve and the Department of Financial Services, managing these highly sensitive compliance audits.
Speaker #2
He’s a heavy hitter for the institution.
Speaker #1
He really is. But then in January 2022, the bottom basically falls out. He gets diagnosed with subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma, which is a very serious form of skin cancer.
Speaker #2
And this is where we see the first major behavioral pattern. It’s one that so many high performing employees fall into, honestly.
Speaker #1
The loyalty trap.
Speaker #2
Yeah, the loyalty trap. Because instead of stepping back to navigate this life-threatening diagnosis, he tries to prove he hasn’t lost a step.
Speaker #1
He practically runs himself into the ground. I mean, the complaint says from March to July of 2022, he is undergoing these grueling treatments.
Speaker #2
Three times a week, right?
Speaker #1
Three times a week at NYU Skin and Cancer and Memorial Sloan Kettering. And he’s suffering from extreme fatigue, passing out. Intense skin irritation that lasts for hours.
Speaker #2
But he still makes up all of his missed hours.
Speaker #1
Yes. He’s still working 60 to 70 hour weeks. I was reading this and thinking, it’s like trying to sprint a high stakes marathon while breathing through a cocktail straw.
Speaker #2
That’s a brutal image, but it’s accurate.
Speaker #1
So why do we do this? Like, why do employees push themselves to the brink of collapse for an employer when they are quite literally fighting for their lives?
Speaker #2
It really boils down to that loyalty trap we mentioned. High performers inherently believe in this reciprocal social contract.
Speaker #1
Like, if I bleed for you, you’ll take care of me?
Speaker #2
Precisely. They think if I suffer for them, if I show them I’m still producing massive value despite my personal agony, well, they’ll grant me some institutional grace when I finally need a break.
Speaker #1
We anthropomorphize the company.
Speaker #2
We do.
Speaker #1
We think the bank has a heart.
Speaker #2
We do. What’s fascinating here is how quickly that shifts. A massive financial institution views the relationship through an entirely different lens.
Speaker #1
A financial lens.
Speaker #2
Right. The moment an employee introduces complex medical needs, the institutional muscle memory doesn’t kick in to protect them. It kicks in to manage them as a liability.
Speaker #1
The spreadsheet calculation just flips from asset to, what, operational friction?
Speaker #2
Yep. Overnight. And that’s what Oyayemi ran into.
Speaker #1
So if that baseline loyalty is just a mirage, what… It actually happens when an employee finally hits their physical limit and asks for help.
Speaker #2
The illusion shatters. And you run headfirst into a bureaucratic wall.
Speaker #1
The bureaucratic wall. Let’s look at the timeline. By June 2022, Oluwame realizes he just cannot maintain a 70-hour pace with intensive oncology treatments.
Speaker #2
Which is completely reasonable.
Speaker #1
Obviously. So he applies for short-term disability through AFLAC, the bank’s benefits provider, and he reaches out to his HR lead, Sarah Martin, for help navigating this.
Speaker #2
And at this exact moment, the institutional distancing begins. HR doesn’t sit down with him to facilitate the paperwork or you know, offer actual support?
Speaker #1
No. Instead, his HR lead just hands him off. She punts him to a junior employee down in Florida. Caleb led so.
Speaker #2
And this junior rep doesn’t even have a direct phone line he can call.
Speaker #1
Okay. I have to pause here and just play devil’s advocate for a second.
Speaker #2
Sure. Go ahead.
Speaker #1
Anyone who has spent time in corporate America knows that massive HR departments can be notoriously clunky, like disorganized machines. Is it possible this wasn’t malicious. Could it just be massive corporate incompetence?
Speaker #2
I mean, if the dysfunction was applied equally to everyone, you could absolutely make that argument. Right. But Owyemi’s complaint specifically undercuts that theory. He alleges that white and non-Black colleagues in his exact same division who requested medical or mental health leaves.
Speaker #1
They got a different experience.
Speaker #2
A vastly different experience. They received active, white-glove HR assistance. HR actively facilitated their forms, coordinated with AFLAC, made sure leaves were approved.
Speaker #1
Meanwhile, this nine-year veteran with cancer is dumped onto a junior rep he can’t even call.
Speaker #2
Exactly. And left to fend off hostile Aflac adjusters totally alone.
Speaker #1
And it works, right? His short-term disability is denied and he’s forced onto an unpaid leave.
Speaker #2
Yeah. In employment law, when you see a stark disparity in how a seemingly broken system operates for different demographics, incompetence is often indistinguishable from a deliberate strategy of attrition.
Speaker #1
It’s a feature, not a bug.
Speaker #2
Right. because the ADA and the New York City human rights law require an interactive process or a cooperative dialogue. The employer has a legal duty to engage in good faith to find an accommodation.
Speaker #1
And dubbing a sick employee into an administrative black hole is basically the exact opposite of that.
Speaker #2
Completely. And that bad faith becomes even more glaring when he actually returns to work.
Speaker #1
Yeah, because his treatments at MSK escalate, and the physical agony of commuting into Manhattan becomes unbearable. So he requests a work-from-home accommodation.
Speaker #2
And how does the bank respond?
Speaker #1
They string him along. Yeah, they grant it, but only in temporary intermittent chunks. A few months here, a few months there.
Speaker #2
With completely unexplained gaps where he’s suddenly forced to commute again.
Speaker #1
Which brings us to August 2024. He submits a final request for a permanent work-from-home setup, provides all the medical documentation in September.
Speaker #2
And the bank does absolutely nothing. They don’t schedule a meeting. They don’t ask for clarification. They don’t offer an alternative setup. They completely ignore him.
Speaker #1
They just weaponize silence.
Speaker #2
Yes. And that silence is entirely intentional. Putting a formal no in writing creates an immediate, legally actionable event.
Speaker #1
So leaving an employee in a perpetual state of limbo.
Speaker #2
It creates immense psychological and physical friction. It often achieves the employer’s ultimate goal, which is getting the employee to quit out of sheer exhaustion.
Speaker #1
Just wearing them down.
Speaker #2
But O’Walya didn’t quit.
Speaker #1
He didn’t. And because that passive strategy failed, Deutsche Bank was forced to escalate to something much more aggressive and, frankly, much more absurd.
Speaker #2
It really is wild when you look at the timeline.
Speaker #1
It’s crazy. So we move from passive-aggressive bureaucratic walls into this, like, active, orchestrated attempt to force him out. So December 2024, right? On December 2nd, he gets a highly positive performance review.
Speaker #2
Outlining his entire book of work for 2025, like specifically mapped out for New York projects.
Speaker #1
Right. But then three days later.
Speaker #2
The entire narrative flips.
Speaker #1
Yeah. Yeah. December 5th. He’s summoned to a meeting with his manager and HR, and they tell him his role is suddenly being relocated to Jacksonville, Florida.
Speaker #2
And they give him just three weeks to decide.
Speaker #1
Three weeks.
Speaker #2
Yeah.
Speaker #1
So right in the middle of the holiday season. Decide if you’re going to uproot your life. abandon your world-class oncology team in New York or take a severance package.
Speaker #2
And if that isn’t crazy enough, a week later.
Speaker #1
December 12th.
Speaker #2
Yeah, December 12th, they casually drop the detail that if he does move, he’s taking a $15,000 pay cut.
Speaker #1
Unbelievable.
Speaker #2
Unbelievable.
Speaker #1
From $125,000 down to $110,000. It is the ultimate mafia tactic.
Speaker #2
It’s the offer you can’t possibly accept.
Speaker #1
Exactly.
Speaker #2
They engineer a scenario so… incompatible with his medical survival that resigning looks like it’s his own voluntary choice.
Speaker #1
Legally, we refer to this as a constructive discharge executed through what’s known as a pretextual squeeze.
Speaker #2
A pretextual squeeze.
Speaker #1
Let’s break that down.
Speaker #2
Well, the employer invents a sudden operational need, like claiming this single regulatory role absolutely must move to Florida. That’s the pretext.
Speaker #1
Got it.
Speaker #2
The goal is to squeeze out an employee they view as a liability without having to formally fire them. Because formally firing a black man battling cancer who just requested an accommodation is a terrible look legally.
Speaker #1
But again, he refuses to fold.
Speaker #2
December 20th.
Speaker #1
He hires an employment lawyer.
Speaker #2
And the moment that attorney steps into the picture, the bank hits the brakes.
Speaker #1
Yeah, they suddenly announced they’re rescinding the relocation. Magically, his job can stay in New York.
Speaker #2
We have to view that reversal through a strict legal lens, though. That wasn’t some attack of institutional conscience.
Speaker #1
No, definitely not.
Speaker #2
It was a calculated maneuver to clean up the timeline. If they force the transfer or terminate him, they hand him a crystal clear adverse employment action. That’s the bedrock of a discrimination lawsuit.
Speaker #1
So by rescinding the demand.
Speaker #2
They’re attempting to erase the adverse action from the record before it solidifies.
Speaker #1
Except they had already announced his departure to his colleagues. They had started reassigning his work. The train had already left the station.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
And then we hit the absolute climax of this institutional hostility. January 24, 2025.
Speaker #2
This part is just breathtakingly brazen.
Speaker #1
An HR representative emails Oyemi to officially inform him that Deutsche Bank has accepted his voluntary resignation. A resignation he explicitly states he never submitted.
Speaker #2
They literally made it up. And they compounded it just days later. On February 4th, with merely one day’s notice, they formally severed his health insurance.
Speaker #1
Cutting off a cancer patient’s health insurance with 24 hours notice, it just takes your breath away.
Speaker #2
It really does.
Speaker #1
So when an employer pulls out all these stops, the phantom junior HR reps, the pretextual relocations, the fabricated resignations, and you take this entire harrowing saga to a federal judge, does the legal system actually protect you?
Speaker #2
That is exactly where Judge Rochon’s ruling from yesterday becomes incredibly illuminating.
Speaker #1
How so?
Speaker #2
Because the reality of federal employment litigation is often much colder and much more mechanical than the human reality of what the employee endured.
Speaker #1
Yeah. And before we even get into which claims survived, I saw in the filings that Deutsche Bank’s lawyers tried to get this entire case thrown out on a procedural technicality. Regarding the EEOC, how did they try to kill this lawsuit before it even started?
Speaker #2
It was a very aggressive defense strategy centered on the timeline of the right to sue letter.
Speaker #1
Okay. Explain that.
Speaker #2
When you sue for discrimination under Title VII or the ADA, you can’t just run straight to federal court. You first have to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Speaker #1
The EEOC.
Speaker #2
Right. The statute generally gives the EEOC 180 days to investigate your claim before they issue a right to sue letter, which is basically your passport into federal court. But in Oyeyemi’s case, the EEOC looked at it and issued his letter in just 42 days.
Speaker #1
And the bank’s lawyers pounced on that early letter.
Speaker #2
They absolutely did. They argued to the judge that the letter was issued prematurely, that the administrative requirements weren’t met, and therefore the entire federal case should be dismissed.
Speaker #1
Wow.
Speaker #2
But Judge Rochon rejected the argument. She relied on established cases interpreting the statutory text, which says the EEOC shall issue a notice if within 180 days they haven’t finished.
Speaker #1
So the word within is the key there.
Speaker #2
Exactly. The courts agree the EEOC doesn’t have to just sit on their hands for six months if their workload makes it obvious they won’t complete the investigation in time. The early letter was ruled perfectly valid.
Speaker #1
A huge procedural win just to keep the case alive. But then the judge has to parse the actual claims. Let’s look at the victories first.
Speaker #2
Sure.
Speaker #1
The judge allowed the ADA claim for failure to accommodate to move forward. She also preserved the disability discrimination claims under the New York City human rights law, as well as the claim that the bank failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue.
Speaker #2
Yes, because at this pleading stage, Owyemi successfully laid out the fundamental elements. He made a clear request, provided valid medical documentation, and the employer simply ignored him. That is textbook failure to accommodate.
Speaker #1
But this is where the legal mechanics get deeply frustrating for an observer. The judge dismissed his ADA retaliation claim entirely.
Speaker #2
She did.
Speaker #1
Which to me, Owyami’s argument makes perfect logical sense. He’s saying, I asked for a permanent accommodation in August, and you retaliated by orchestrating a fake resignation to fire me in January.
Speaker #2
But the judge ruled that the time gap between those two events was simply too long to prove causation based on timing alone.
Speaker #1
This is wild to me.
Speaker #2
It’s a crucial concept for anyone in the workforce to grasp. It stems from the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework.
Speaker #1
Okay, what does that actually mean for the employee?
Speaker #2
Basically, if you don’t possess direct evidence.
Speaker #1
Like smoking gun email from a manager saying, fire him because he asked for medical leave.
Speaker #2
Exactly.
Speaker #1
Okay.
Speaker #2
Without that, you have to rely on temporal proximity. You have to show the court that the protected activity, asking for leave, and the punishment happened so close together that a jury can naturally infer they are linked.
Speaker #1
Wait, I have to stop you there. Are you saying that if I ask for a life-saving medical accommodation in August and the company just… quietly taps its fingers on the desk until January, they can fire me and legally claim it had nothing to do with my request?
Speaker #2
Yes.
Speaker #1
Just because five months passed. How is that remotely fair?
Speaker #2
It’s not about fairness. It reveals exactly how sophisticated corporate HR and legal departments operate. If we connect this to the bigger picture, courts in the Second Circuit have established a fairly rigid boundary.
Speaker #1
Which is what?
Speaker #2
A gap of two to three months is generally the absolute outer limit for proving retaliation by timing alone. Employers are keenly aware of this legal expiration date.
Speaker #1
Oh, wow.
Speaker #2
It completely recontextualizes Deutsche Bank’s behavior. This is likely why they strung him along with those temporary intermittent accommodations.
Speaker #1
They were just stalling.
Speaker #2
They granted him a few months of work from home here and there, specifically to break the legal chain of causation. By the time they dropped the hammer with a fake resignation in late January, they had successfully run out the clock on his August request.
Speaker #1
So they insulated themselves from the retaliation claim through sheer patience.
Speaker #2
Pretty much.
Speaker #1
That is sinister. They used the legal framework as a weapon. And my frustration with the mechanics of the law only deepens when we look at his race discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981.
Speaker #2
Because those were also dismissed.
Speaker #1
Yeah. Overjury clearly pointed out that his white colleagues received permanent accommodations and active HR support, while he was ignored and squeezed out. But the judge applied a new standard from a recent Supreme Court case called Muldrow.
Speaker #2
Right. The Muldrow decision represents a critical evolution in employment law. The Supreme Court ruled that an employee no longer has to show significant or substantial harm to prove they suffered an adverse employment action.
Speaker #1
OK, that sounds like a good thing.
Speaker #2
It is. But they still must demonstrate that they suffered some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.
Speaker #1
But this is what I don’t understand. The judge ruled that simply denying a permanent work-from-home accommodation doesn’t alter the terms and conditions of employment the way a demotion or a firing does. How can the courts say that forcing a man with cancer to commute into Manhattan, causing immense physical agony and fatigue, doesn’t change his working conditions?
Speaker #2
It really highlights a massive disconnect between human reality and judicial doctrine. The courts apply a very rigid structural definition to terms and conditions.
Speaker #1
What are they looking at then?
Speaker #2
They’re looking at your title, your base salary, your official benefits package, and your primary job responsibilities. The physical and psychological toll of how you are forced to perform those duties, it just doesn’t fit neatly into their contractual definition.
Speaker #1
So the suffering doesn’t count?
Speaker #2
The suffering doesn’t equate to a structural change in the job itself. At least not in a way that satisfies a discrimination claim under this specific framework. Not without an accompanying demotion or pay cut.
Speaker #1
It feels incredibly disconnected from how work actually happens. And the judge also threw out his evidence regarding the white colleagues who received better treatment, right? Because he wasn’t specific enough?
Speaker #2
Exactly. This is known as the comparator trap. To prove discrimination by showing someone else was treated better, you have to prove that person was you quote, similarly situated in all material respects.
Speaker #1
So you can’t just say they worked in the same division?
Speaker #2
No, you cannot simply state in a lawsuit, a white colleague in my division got a permanent work-from-home setup. At the pleading stage, you must detail their exact job duties, who their specific manager was, what their performance metrics were.
Speaker #1
And how their situation flawlessly mirrored yours.
Speaker #2
Exactly.
Speaker #1
Which is nearly impossible. Companies hide all of that data behind walls of corporate secrecy. An employer can build a culture of zero transparency regarding who gets what accommodations and then use that very lack of transparency to get a discrimination lawsuit thrown out.
Speaker #2
Because the employee couldn’t pierce the veil to get the specifics. It creates a massive, often insurmountable hurdle for plaintiffs before they ever get to the discovery phase where they could actually subpoena those details.
Speaker #1
Man. So we’ve walked through the loyalty trap, the weaponized silence, the pretextual squeeze. and the cold reality of the federal courts. We promised an employee survival guide, so let’s distill this into three concrete tactics you need to deploy to protect yourself.
Speaker #2
Tactic number one, you must understand that HR is a risk management function for the corporation, not your personal advocate.
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #2
When you need medical leave or an accommodation, anticipate the bureaucratic wall. You have to document every single interaction. If you have a phone call, immediately send a follow-up email summarizing what was said. Document every time they go silent.
Speaker #1
And the comparators, right?
Speaker #2
Yes. Quietly pay attention to how colleagues are being treated. If they are receiving white glove service while you are drowning, write down exactly who they are and what they do.
Speaker #1
Tactic number two, beware the legal clock. You now understand that if you request an accommodation, your protection against retaliation based on timing alone literally expires in about two to three months.
Speaker #2
That is the critical window.
Speaker #1
So if your employer is dragging their feet, suddenly losing paperwork or offering you rolling temporary fixes that just kick the can down the road. they are likely running out the clock.
Speaker #2
Do not let their silence lull you into a false sense of security. They are building a timeline, and you need to be building one too.
Speaker #1
And tactic number three, do not fall for the orchestrated constructive discharge.
Speaker #2
The fake resignation.
Speaker #1
Yeah. If your employer suddenly imposes a drastic change to your job, like demanding you relocate across the country during the holidays, or inexplicably slashing your pay, they’re trying to squeeze you out so you quit on your own.
Speaker #2
Do not resign.
Speaker #1
Do not sign anything.
Speaker #2
Right.
Speaker #1
Right. You need to retain an employment attorney immediately, well before whatever arbitrary deadline they have set for you. In Oyemi’s case, the sheer presence of legal counsel forced the bank to instantly rescind the relocation demand.
Speaker #2
They backed down because they knew the squeeze was illegal and they knew they’d been caught on the record.
Speaker #1
This entire ordeal proves that you cannot rely on corporate benevolence. Your health, your career. And your legal standing are entirely your responsibility to fiercely protect.
Speaker #2
Before we wrap up, I do want to leave you with one final thought that goes beyond the legal mechanics of this case.
Speaker #1
Okay. What’s that?
Speaker #2
Think about the cultural fallout inside that bank. Consider the other employees working in the anti-financial crime division.
Speaker #1
Yeah, his co-workers.
Speaker #2
They just watched a loyal nine-year veteran, a man who sacrificed his physical well-being to work 60-hour weeks while acting. actively battling cancer, gets squeezed out, handed a fabricated resignation, and stripped of his health insurance overnight.
Speaker #1
Overnight.
Speaker #2
When an institution executes a playbook that ruthless in plain sight, what does it do to the psychology of the workforce left behind?
Speaker #1
It’s terrifying.
Speaker #2
It sends a singular, chilling message. You are only as valuable to this company as your last 60-hour week. And the moment you stumble, the machine isn’t going to catch you. It… is going to run you over.
Speaker #1
It’s a sobering reality check for anyone dedicating their life to an employer. Thank you for joining us for this Employee Survival Guide. Stay vigilant, document absolutely everything, and always protect yourself in the workplace. Have a great week.
Speaker #0
If you like the Employee 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 as good, right? I’ll keep it up. I’ll keep 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 mcaryu at capclaw.com. That’s capclaw.com.