up taking a substantial amount of time off the last three months that she worked for the agency she was on a work at home only basis because she couldn't put up with the kind of dated a few that are publishable here under your honor we don't have time to get into the home is the specifics or exactly what it's about because it's not a conclusory allegation doesn't do the trick the question is whether a reasonable person i would would find this intolerable off was it about the conditions that she worked under that would cause a reasonable person to feel that she had no avenue other than resigned there were constant demeaning and belittling comments she was excluded from their nation she did she is often put under very strict deadlines because they haven't bothered to share with her information that she was required to produce they put her in the situation there's no win situation the attempt was to run her out of that position significant and whether they would have been proven after a hearing is something we can only conjecture it would work decided to use bin gesture instead of resorting to the hearings they were required to do that's what i wish to do process she was entitled to due process there are and get some result well it's a very skeptical view through this i think due process is an incident where i get to step up and have my day and chance do i get a guarantee is fundamental to the care of your particular result you look at the records you see that evidence shows that the budget personnel manners in this organisation were not within the province we see on the one zero five zero of the appendix alleged that this was in her province into theory with her duties but she did not make that allegation also she was very upset about it but the agency granted and trying to make things worse here is evidence in the record after the border nevertheless furnished her with the budget when she asked for it and and in fact the following here the union has asked for her input  for the following years budget and if you look at the appendix and you see what her child duties were it actually says that her input to the budget is reasonable person would have to look through the eyes of a reasonable person a person who is subjective not somebody subjective feelings and since it was a legitimate work subject to discuss then claims was responsible for a hostile work environment that that says that she that he knows that the best interest of the center is that her heart and he stressed that she should continue to do the work that she had been doing very well before and and that leads me to her next down ation which is she claims that she suffered a very poor performance appraisal but when you look at the performance appraisal on page ninety seven animosities between doctors and unions who was on the same level as her gave her a list description of all her duties so that there shouldn't be any part feelings and that there shouldn't be any  of his blood by the evidence that she again supply she presented only eight days of sick week and some of that time was spent taking care of the relative indeed we see there substantial there was a substantial period that lapsed between the letter of her resignation which was in october and the actual date of resignation and work is were fully agreed just actions of the agency of jack objective took away all choices but with that person to resign and some of the things that happened to these employees is that the employees her deteriorating and her being reduced to a place where she couldn't think straight and she couldn't even bear to come to work on a regular basis that's also part of the allegation which they don't want to mention this was a case where it had there been a hearing and that's the way the process is supposed to work it's supposed to work with a hearing there's supposed to be a chance for her to make it through a process or her performance appraisal turned out to be fully successful there was some positive language in it but it mean every time he is having difficulties in the workplace in conflict with coworkers that the roots are not evidence to require a hearing on involuntary resignation why this different from the one of mine that's next to your honor and one of the things that makes this case different is the fact that she had to digital citizens that caused her to need to her doctor recommended that she not return to the work environment that she but they are done for us they're very specific they're not you know my boss was mean to me there's very specific things that are left and they would have been subject to prove enough to satisfy the standard that were able to hold a hearing