and i reference my skin color and gender so that your honors can visualize the race color and ethnicity of the plaintiff and please your honour's let me apologize in advance i'm not trying to offend your honour's but i need to but we need to state accurately the sort of intersectional combined race and gender harassment and discrimination the plaintiff was subjected to like have testified that her direct supervisor defend bitch think she's the shit you black people think you're the shit these effing people think they are the shit these black people think they are the shit they also call bubble girl and despite defendant's statements lynn is contrast who is also in the exact same position within the bubble testified and she is not african american that she was never called  important to know plenty of testify that even the term bitch was directed to black women only including herself white women were not called bitch hispanic women were not called bitch so all the bitch slurs that were stated were because of plaintiffs race and gender simultaneously now all of these racists to provide provide details as to why the comments were made and what the but within that plaintiff did state well the other details where these statements were made the fact the defendant kilometer was the primary person to make these statements the fact that how breaker also joined in kilometer would would consistently call plaintiff and her african american coworkers black stupid fucking idiots many times you're honest can reference this these statements initially offered forty thousand dollars that defendants say that ms fletcher in her negotiations successfully set a new standard for starting pay which was then applied in this country or us  how where is the discrimination in that sequence of events she honor and it's important to note that again point of stating that she was treated more negatively because of her race and her gender and the pay differential is added is in addition to the racist sexist slurs achieve received while a separate claim was she in fact paid something different at st yes she was offered six thousand dollars less than the other than other people unless i offered but she was right from the moment from her st paycheck she was paid at the rate of forty thousand dollars correct i believe so correct your honor but only where is whereas the discrimination there may be an attempt at discrimination i suppose but was there any actual disparity and pain no your honor but again even attempted discrimination in terms of salary and in turn of hiring these are not separate claims it is added to these are in addition to plaintiffs of the racial  referring to these are not separate claims they're added on to the racist comments now these comments are enough and the other information i plan to provide are certainly sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine th hostile work environment at the very least it should go to the jury to decide even issues such as credibility and your honors are stating now plaintiff complain for you under the standard for a hostile work environment is that the conduct has to be sufficiently fucking black people think they're the shit calling them fucking idiots i can't stand these fucking people this as a black woman and seeing your black colleagues being referred to this consistently through throughout employment if that's not creating a severe or pervasive condition that altering the conditions of the employment it's hard to state what is and again why people  plaintiff had complained about making those lawyers discipline plaintiff write ups that led to her firing transferred her which was a demotion from an h r recruiter position to the bubble position as a secretary for weeks after her written complaints and defendants fireplug of six weeks after her written complaints let me ask you a question with respect to the write ups was there any dispute regarding the facts of some of those write ups like for example being late thirty two times  issues regarding taking directions from managers not placing individuals as directed by braid or not following up on emails is there any evidentiary dispute regarding those facts absolutely your honor and on after that and two of those nine occurred in july th well that's five months before they ever wrote her up about it but it's only four weeks after plenty of complaint and then one other was an before she was ever fired and defendants did not see fit to give her any write ups about any of it certainly much less firing her until she complained addition in your honour's it's important to know that that is why a lot of testified on that plaintive copied off the shared drive building the patient supervisor made all of that information trying to never delete it from the system never removed from the system she just put him into a shredder cheat for her own record so she can make a work work related data is but this was wasn't personal that it was it actually yes your honor but i'm letting your honour's know exactly the data that was in the spreadsheet employee name building location and supervisor name the status of two thousand and twelve that was problems the company discovered that she had taken confidential information office shared and i emphasize the word shared company computer drive in appropriately email that information to her own personal email account then deleted the information from the company computer system and finally attempted to cover her tracks by cleaning out the trash folder in her computer she then added insult to injury by lying to company officials about what she had done it was for this reason and this reason only not race or gender that her employment was terminated try as she may plan of can point to no other individual because none exists that engage in similar misconduct so bleich that so blatantly violated company policy in this spreadsheet had a rating of individuals and as those individuals would approach the company for hire in the future for example this would be the place that people could or would go to find out what the internal assessment of those individuals was these were employees or they were applicants potential employer employees who were employing yes temporary employees so for purposes of did other others to contribute to the document add information to the document in that in this case in this particular case this was a document that she in her capacity as a human resources person that created whether other individuals utilized it or not is not part of the record one way or the other but certainly it was on the shared drive which is an important element in this case the fact that it was there as a resource for others to use whether it was or whether it was and is largely irrelevant in the sense that it was pertinent information for the company to use was available for others was available for other uses it that's exactly right that was the purpose of it that was why we  searched it because when when she transferred to a different position and we were providing orientation to the new person it was exactly you know to show them that this existed where we found out that that it had been deleted respectfully submitted that this reliance is totally misplaced that case also decided by judge buchwald that the district court level involved the female plaintiffs claim that her failure to get a bricklaying job was  discriminatory this court vacated and remanded judge buchwald's grant of summary judgment in that case and in a two to one decision the majority disagreed with judge buchwald and found that she had not properly examined the record as a whole the majority highlighted the fact that there was evidence that not a single female employee this was a failure to hire case had ever occupied a bricklaying position an inexorable zero as they phrased it in addition there was a statement from the employer in that case that they preferred someone who was quote stronger unquote a comment that the court felt was potentially probative of a discriminatory intent what about the slurs and and the racial comments that they're in the record they're in the record and you know the you know judge buchwald took all of that evidence as true as she should have and she analyzed the those under there's no tel circumstances test that this as well established law in the circuit looking at the i recall i do they not generate the tribal issue because there they don't rise to the level of severe or pervasive in any event and it it's not just the quantity it's also the quality of the evidence submitted we draw the your attention to footnote nine of judge buchwald's decision where she addressed exactly the nature of the of the plaintiff's testimony in this respect it was completely imprecise in terms of to ration context timing she couldn't tell us the year she couldn't tell us the month she couldn't tell us who was present she couldn't tell us the frequency so we are all forced out with judge buchwald to guess as to when and what exactly took place where there were other categorical denials by the individuals who she alleged of course these are human resources professionals and the notion that human resources professionals would even remotely engage in that conduct is is outrageous in and of itself but for purposes  racial slurs well that the case is cited in our brief and i mean i take some issue with the term this many because we don't know how this many is because of the the  inability of the plaintiff to articulate what this many of the the truth is you know with all due respect to counsel who is you know trying to make it sound as if this was happening all the time there were two statements that are arguably racial one where she was allegedly called a black bitch in the other that you know black people think they're the shit and with respect to those claims it is completely unknown in the record based on the plaintiff's testimony how often that happened and them and in those kids in fact in those cases they were it was worse it was way worse and in those cases those are district court decisions that were upheld by the circuit you know ultimately it was found that the severe and pervasive standard wasn't met and  did in some way in responding because of the inability to pinpoint times places dates or did you have enough of an understanding about who is alleged to have made these statements and what setting she well it's a disputed fact that there was ever a complaint at all in the end to six weeks prior to her determination as part of her response to a question here she indicated that there was discrimination and again you know we argued that we had no knowledge of it but for purposes of her of her decision judge buchwald assume assume that we did and but though it in the analysis ultimately determine that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons with respect to any alleged adverse employment action there was no evidence of pretext you know i mean the outrageous breach of our computer policy and  respect to terminations is a perfect example it doesn't matter that she complained that's a separate independent and completely unrelated reason for her terminations it was as if she would have hit somebody it's the same thing it doesn't matter that she would have complained the day before of  discrimination what what happened to her had nothing to do with that there was no corroborate tory evidence in deposition testimony or affidavits supporting the plaintiff's allegations with respect to these allegations none and and a tell us when tell us who was there so that we could investigate so that we could determine whether there were other individuals who could corroborate or not the truth is she mentioned not a single individual who was allegedly there who could corroborate it so based on her her you know completely imprecise and uncertain deposition testimony you know we have no place to go quite quite frankly unless the panel has additional questions were two for four through two for six so it's certainly on the record and within the record as well as plaintiff's repeated details she complained how breaker so claims that they don't know who she complained to was just factually inaccurate she complained she complained to material she complained in the office she complained during her employment saying that there are no details at all is just not accurate while on the on the issue of details but not nine and judge buchwald's opinion quote from the deposition in your client say repeatedly not at this time i don't have any details i don't know and the way judge book wall describes it is that although she says there were comments between five dollars ten cents times a point of could not remember the month season or year in which the comments were made him with one exception  whether you disagreed with how the district court characterize your client's testimony absolutely we disagree your honor and this is where vaio dates months years she did not provide details she did as we just said it's understood in the record linnaeus contrast to replace plaintiff had no idea what type of spread she meant in terms of the goodbye though she never seen it before and had never and she said that no one had ever used that spreadsheet to ever determine anything about employees and and kalonzo also testified and confirmed that plaintiff was the only one to use these files that goes to the maliciousness claim that claiming that light was malicious plenty of stated that she had no reason to believe that anyone ever used her she was but she would have been fired at best it was a conversation it wasn't a fight it wasn't a reason to fire like that and again that's for the jury to decide thank you thank you