even further. even if there were some kind of an agreement or some kind of handbook or contract that described him as a seasonal worker, if he's actually doing something different than he's entitled to receive those benefits. it's like that old joke, how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? the answer is four. it doesn't matter what you call it. it's what it is in real life. and if in real life we've got somebody who's working full time, he should be entitled to those full time benefits. this case illustrates so perfectly the gap between what happens in a court of law and what happens in the court of public opinion. because if you go out there and you ask anybody whether or not this woman deserves those full-time benefits, i think you get a resounding yes. i would surge that city regardless of whatever legal niceties they want to wrap themselves in, take care of this woman and her family. >> yeah. she says he was full time. she insists, you know, saying even before the fire he talked