comments and could only remember a few and only one of those commas was actually about her there that the court held that any doubt her inability to recall any more specifics of the jokes or comments went to the weight of her testimony which is a matter for the finer fa similarly in davis whole construction the summons or get rejected the argument that the plaintiff hostile work environment claim was limited to only those comments that she could remember where she claimed and she remembered ties to dick incidents over the course of two and a half years of harassment though she claimed was just as common sexual innuendo while the court said that the case would have been stronger if she'd been able to remember more of it and found that what she did recall supported her claim harassment fear each victim recalled  time period there there was no a event that precipitated her abrupt termination and the commission offered evidence casting doubt on leaving associates clane about how it hired her for only a short time to pay off her attorneys be there for that we think that this evidence was opinions which i think was one sixty eight in the district court below the docket number where he said we represent the public interest so we come forward with the claim that there was a hostile work environment and that the victims are proof of a plane and you certainly we are not with every nationality every type of person that you can imagine pregnant and none like me and women people of different sexual orientations you know already this case is that the  situated individuals were treated differently now the only evidence before this court with regard to performance was her own self serving statement that she thought she was performing satisfactorily and there's there's going into pretax the question is whether or not the existence of other claims of other terminator pregnant people is enough to create a tribal issue thak on pretexts now tell me why that wouldn't be so sorry you know the fact that there were other again unlike any of the cases your honour's have been involved in that i could find or any cases that i found at all not single one of these claimants ever made a complaint not a single and we have to find that this was both subjectively and objectively hostile and there has to be evidence to make that finding not one of the purported claimants ever made a complaint to the law firm and not one ever made a complaint c e o see now as the case when life grew into a few add on the rear end that never happened again are involving individuals who were not employed at the firm at the same time so i'd like to briefly touch on a few points raised by my opponent and the first is the contention that the comments are jobs for not actually something that were almost a daily occurrence the record supports the commission's contention that they were in the record accepted to sixty one and only out testified that and i can read the testimony how many jokes you tell you answer a lot i didn't count of them question what's a lot what's a lot of answer at least once a day question at there was a jury question close to the case i could find was only unpublished which was which vs champion chevrolet which was sexual comments or sexual advances per month and this court held that that was a jury questionnaire so we think that our evidence is that these were daily investigation if the court would like to hear about that i can read a little bit from mr torrens deposition on this dispute about the amount of money and what she testified to in the record excerpts the one seventy s that we were initiating  an interracial couple so that doesn't negate our case tony again we think the motive is something should go to the jury it should be for the jury to consider