what acts must be alleged within the three hundred days of the pilot and the action i mean can you address that particular point because i think that the district court did talk about morgan and i'm assuming you're going t the hostile work environment that existed before the limitations period can be taken into account for purposes of liability here within the limitations period porter was subjected to repeated acts of retaliatory harassment which serve to next rightly so what i guess my question is aside from from temporal the fact that one followed the other whatever the time period was what's the next one i think very compelling piece of evidence is the after she had been on the graveyard shift for years and after just santa speaking a personal assignment sergeant she went to ask if there were other positions available to santas responded not for you proximity between the two events but the problem as they understand it is i guess you're trying to cause two to allege a theory that acts five others in the interim would have been sufficient to  establish this environment in which different supervisors were acting as agents of other supervisors that it now where where saying that the a person says i have ever retaliate to laurie i dislike you and that they wake me to allow temporal proximity itself to become an element of the clanging so that a supervisor can encourage employees to report immediately the act so that the employer can conduct an appropriate investigation and take appropriate disciplinary action and if the if the charges sustained  and the problem here as i see it is that you're asking us to ignore the fact that congress has provided a very short time frame within which the employee must make a complaint understand the employer has proffered that because of her status as an apprentice or whatever the journeyman correctional officer that there was a limitation on the number of i'll call them inexperienced correctional hostile work environment that existed before that was caused by his unwonted sexual advances still continuing violations dr and apply to make the unwanted advances actionable even though they occurred outside the limitations  same analysis applies here within the limitations period where it was subjected to repeated acts of retaliatory harassment would serve to reinforce and maintain the hostile work environment that existed the entire time she worked there but show i think the conspiracy is a good example here we have repeated repeated pattern of activity where retaliatory conduct made women including porter afraid to report the sexual harassment that was so pervasive in the department so it's like without any analysis of whether or not they're related at all as long as event a happened in those events later regardless of the time period regardless of the nature of the act you can blur them all together for a continuing violation and that analysis is wrong definition of sexual harassment but more importantly you have to look at the nature of the act when she said there's some pretty serious contact alleged a period of time here and while there's a temporal while there is a span here are that your position that she can do that the time span alone means that there can be no next well my position is that the time span creates its actual intentions problem with regards to sexual harassment claim and then secondly that the timespan creates a problem with respect to the conversation element of the prima fascia case of retaliation i have a i have a question when did the perpetrator your become in a position to speak had hers action against her well under the theory that harassment can be an adverse employment action she was going to mention at all times to take some sort of adverse employment actually against her  obtain she was complaining about three transfer two or three jobs changes that she didn't get that one of them with r o t two to which she actually did cancel that job change the evidence supports that there are several others and it in the footnote and determined that the department had presented legitimate business reasons and that appellant had not presented enough evidence of pretext and the court was only in a position with regard to job  not met the burden of proof to establish a pretext let me if you have that the chronological she gets the first transfer is to second watch which by definition there is better crashed officer do not constitute an adverse and plan of action the reason being that correctional officers part and parcel of their job is to be able to cover all of the posts they are routinely in in a situation where they're being proposed and there was after he leaves that meeting where you can form the complaint in our case it's the evidence that the appellant has put forth suggesting causation doesn't even get close to the evidence that the court found was relevant to causation in the actually there has to be something to link them as as an act of retaliation back to that protected that yes in this case where there's a twenty nine month gap close proximity could evidence causation but seems to me that that was part of what occurred it's not only there's the issue of what might be out the statute of limitations but then there's evidence there that isn't per my ability i think it's the appellant sad but can be used for other purposes  not address the evidence and or did not specifically in their decision address the evidence in the interim which is minimal if anything and that if that failure to do that if there was a failure is to harm one because there's no evidence in that period of time that