is michelle it please the court good morning my name is renee fell and i represent the plaintiff appellant michelle nishant this nishant was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment at the hands of her supervisor in violation of title versus the illinois human rights commission the court held that an employer was strictly liable for their harassing kind of a supervisory employee even when there was no authority to effect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's employment the logic behind the parts rationale was that an employee may have a reasonable belief of retaliation if she reported the harassment and in that case the illinois human rights act is construed liberally in this correct well he is an employee of chrysler he is an employee of chrysler it is our position that chrysler was mis nishant joint employer was was for what i heard joint employer but i  it does when you consider some of the other factors as a whole so for example mr samba had the authority to evaluate her work he also had the authority to suggest personnel actions relating to her so for instance he ultimately suggested that she was removed from the lot and stratosphere followed his directions it was his suggestion that he did not want her working as a supervisor previous to that and  the night case which was cited in our brief there are five factors to determine an employment relationship and it is our belief that chrysler meets all five of these factors the first factor is the extent of  are very similar allegations but we still believe that she has two causes of action under both laws really i don't understand this but it's twice the damages for the for the  goal harms but it makes sense no your honor under bet the damages for a battery are different than the damages under title seven under title seven she can seek back court require chrysler or to prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the future and now you said you say there are five reasons why a shot why chrysler should be considered her employer even though there's no contra yes one of the first factor is the extent of the employer's control and supervision over a well now wait a minute you're begging the question we talk about the employers troll the question is whether chrysler is the employer so they don't want to start off by saying that because it's the employer that's a reason to deem it the employer right work he eventually gave suggestions were guarding the personnel actions relating to her he suggested that she be removed from her supervisor position she was eventually demoted  when that was not sufficient for him two days later he requested that she be removed from the lot she was removed from the lot the second factor is the kind of occupation and nature of skills required including whether skills are obtained in the cost of operations such as equipment supplies fees licenses workplace and maintenance of operations there was a an agreement between chrysler and stratosphere that provided  for the that the cost would be the supplies used in the shans employment would be covered by chrysler this agreement also provided that the law would be rented out by chrysler which shows that the location of misty shuns employment was also being rented out by chrysler the fourth factor the method and form of payment and benefits the same agreement also provided for the  wages that would be allocated to the employees who would be staffed at this chrysler work space and the fifth factor is the length of job commitment and or expectations it was miss nishan in sometime in july or august of two thousand and twelve she was in a trailer with mr saba and two supervisory employees for stratosphere missed during that time mr  tears in the summary judgment brief we also stated that another super size or e employee of stratospheric jim harris was present in the trailer misty shon did not know for certain whether he witnesse why would that be part of the damages that she would have taken against trans your i respectfully disagree we stand by our belief that chrysler was her joint employer and in the case of chrysler the without screening you know chrysler's employees to get rid of saab so i just don't understand the multiple suits also all seeking the death of gold or lead i think that there  are some differences between the three defendants in the case of chrysler i believe that they were strictly liable because saddam was a supervisory employee so when she was sexually harassed by mr sabah and complain damages caused by stratosphere so all you did was complicate life by having three defendants set of wonderful ok thank you your honor if there are no further questions i would like to reserve my who was her boss her boss and her boss's boss was the operations manager james harris both stratospheric quality employees those two employees had supervisory authority over her those two employees were the ones that directed her employment and those two employees were the ones that decided that she failed in her perform their performance expectations and that began almost immediately after she became a project supervisor in july almost immediately the record boss met and decided that she was not meeting her expectations and that they would demote her to project supervisor that he male from james harris was in the record eighty three dash for it shows that it is their decision his words were and i have observed and we've decided that was made by by the by those to stress for quality employees and e mails to stress or quality h are coordinating the decisions and then on september  twenty first she got sent home for being coming to work late by debina turlock stratus for quality employ a few days later or in the next couple of days we have this good popping incident that causes extreme embarrassing but there is more to my client consumers and she was making mistakes show she was asked by the f c a formerly known as chrysler by the f c a yard manager show me that you know how to do this brake inspection she walked to the car put her head under the hood and that was that of course the brakes are nowhere near the engine and so that was that and that caused to be in a chair lock stratosphere quality employee to send an email on september twenty fourth stratosphere quality human resources saying we have a change of course we are no longer going to go with the demotion we have to get him and michelle michelle off the lot and that happened on september twenty six after more than a week after all this happened october eighth that was the first time any want to stress or quality knew anything about this where wait wait yes what it what about this black yes ok of before then the allegation is that ms blackman knew about it and i appreciate that that's going to come to your question judge ms blackman testimony there to michelle what i'll take from exit up but michelle is shon and michelle blackman were friends they were co employees they were both projects supervisors they work together at the same level at the same level your honor to the now to argue that it was reasonable for her to rely on ms blackman seen this alleged event by the way one of then one incident very bad i agree i totally agree question of the case law with respect constructive knowledge your honor is it reasonable as this court decided in the bear case is it reasonable from the perspective of the complainant to expect that that complaint would work its way up the ladder now keep in mind it wasn't a complaint undisputed michelle michelle on never ever ever complained to anyone before the decision was made what she says instead is michelle blackman saw one incident and that should be constructive not on her bare that depends entirely on reasonable those with a complaint have reasonably expected well the answer that's really simple she wasn't being observed by someone up the chain she was beans or by her buddy her coworker but the handbook says any some totally agree unfortunately ms and shine cannot cannot rely on the handbook because she will start and in this argument telling you she never had a handbook ok she did not have the handbook she doesn't know what the handbook says she doesn't know about it so she gives us a about mrs black well we don't know that the question your honor appreciate that and is that the question under bare is was it reasonable from the complainants perspective business show on didn't have this procedure now she knew how to get it we all know that and i want to make this point she knew how to get the handle she knew we had one and she knew how to get her testimony is on my first day they told me how to handle they told me they were going to send it to me that i didn't get it and it was when she got sent home on september twenty first that she got angry and went to to get the the handbook i'm sorry on my time is expired oh  seventh and then additional counseling that led to the demotion decisional september eleventh and before that it got got implemented remember then she's got sent home and now she remembers we got a handbook and she goes to the employment office says i need the handbook is i gotta look at the attendance policy cause i'm really really mad and she calls h r to complain about attendance not about harassment but about attendance by the time the hood popping incident happened stratus her quality had tried and tried to get her to understand the instructions and she just wasn't getting it and i urge you to look at the september third in the september she did september twenty four and september twenty five in september twenty six e mails record eighty three sixteen  is that chrysler happens to be our lawyer she cites to the night cakes the night case was decided by this court and more recently the love case which we believe is similar before it starts my opponent is proposing something that's unprecedented that is there's a five factor test on there not at the summary judgment stage she did not address factors three four this court to look at a buyback to test after she's already conceded three of the factors and move forward overturning a well reasoned decision by the district court that's not have the ability to fire her at no time did mr sabbar or anyone else from f c a demand that she be fired rather akin to what happened in the love case we simply didn't want her and her deficient performance on the law looking after our vehicles that is wholly different than firing we couldn't do it and i think the district court did a great job and and noting that we certainly didn't have a unilateral power because we had to request at least four times for her not to be on the lot working on our vehicles these are safety issues and we need to make sure that the consumers are not put in a position where they have to fact the cars that's important so what mrs john and her crew did in the love case this court found that the punitive contractor did not hold the key power firing when he could ban workers from the job site but could not in their employ and that's exactly what happened here but i think importantly in the love case which distinguishes it in our favor is that love retain the right to unilaterally remover from the workplace there is no evidence in the record that f d a had that walk and of course the record shows that we didn't because we had to keep asking one of the other factors as it relates to control the supervision and it's important to understand how this comes about when a call the issue is found to exist as the engineers and professionals would provide specifications for repair or inspection to mr so bought the source of bob would then provide them to the managers stratosphere the managers of the stratosphere would then come up with specific procedures on how to fix that when they came up with their worksheet and specific procedures the record is clear crystal clear that it was not necessary to get mr sabbar stas approval so the notion that  more than being in a position to look at the result to be a cheat that is the end product regarding scheduling which is another sub factor ups factor one it is  on the twenty first when she called in a char she was calling in because she was mad because of the schedule that her supervisor put her on miss turlock she didn't call to complain about m before it comes out so i apologize ahead of time but she didn't complain to anyone at f c a and she i know that i mean claim to somebody or that well it's my understanding and the reason why i was saying they want to be flippant because that stratospheres issue in what they're talking about is if you take a look at the record she admits that she did not tell anybody at f c a any time about  alleged discrimination she also stated in the record that she didn't tell anyone at strasser in june july august or september that's in the record what we do see in the record is in october eight she call stratospher weighs in favor of the company not being her employer those are words from this court clearly she could take her skills anywhere and she learned her skills before she came to christ or because she was an  inspector before she can write that takes care of the first two factors the other three factors weren't ever address but if the court would like for me to go through them i'd be more than once at the issue  rather as an initial point chrysler's position is that it's not complained to anyone at chrysler that is incorrect she made numerous complaints to mr saab himself who was a supervisory employee  going to the september twenty fifth e mail that counsel had previously referenced where stratospheres management had decided to remove ms nation from the law there were two issues with her performance that were referenced the first was that mr saga had claimed that she had spent too much time talking to the suppliers on the lot and the second reason was that she had incorrectly identified a few vehicles as non conforming when they were actually conforming stratospheres position is that miss new shine's performance was so deficient that she had humiliated them in front of an important client this incident was not referenced in the email in which management ultimately decided to remove her from the lot it is also telling that this e mail occurred a couple days after miss new shon most aggressively counsel for chrysler a reference to love case in our response to their motion for summary judgment we explained that we believe that this case is distinguishable from the love case particularly because  well thank you very