problems here i know i can see where you get around a lot of problems hostile work environment but the standard here is whether it's reasonable woman would find this to be a reasonably complaining and it's very reasonable to complain it's inappropriate to display pornography in the workplace in view of others whether it's meant to be whether it's whether you're requiring a request if people do is not the purpose of title seven and organ follows titles in its law it's not the purpose to basically scrub the work environment completely of all innuendos and things like that this got to be  offense conduct that basically changes the conditions of employment and i'm i'm i'm asking you to help me here by giving me some case law authorities any kind of authority that would indicate that the law has gotten to the the context objective or subjectively offensive and there's multiple instances where it was now fortunately those women were only exposed once or twice and but there's no evidence that the now out of the office multiple times let's look at it this way she doesn't know when she's going to be exposed even at a glance to judgment no it's happening throughout the work day it's intermittent she complains it stops for a while starts up again at that point i would posit that he is targeting her what for whatever reason i passive aggression who knows me but i think that here the court remedial measures taken previously after her first complaint were clearly inadequate as eight hundred three zoom in the case law states that if you if the conduct resumes its as a matter of line and inadequate remedial measure that was taken and we also have evidence that the the investigation took place only after a letter from an attorney threatening legal action or or  first because both threats might and i'm quoting might well have dissuaded the reasonable worker from complaining about sexual harassment no your honor i don't believe that was there for two reasons first of all if you want to look at that alone you want to say company policy she admitted in her deposition that he did not say anything to suggest that he was angry or critical of her for coming forward and complaining and the only statement he made was that he was  ripped the record indicates that and he doesn't deny that he told her he was thinking about contacting human resources for her discussion with her coworkers about  i want the lawyer and then treat discuss a lot of anyway and he made it clear to them what's he wouldn't work there with either resources and i think that the without a full her full her at the end that nothing was going to be done and she also had the i mean let's look at it this way if if everybody is saying that there has to be part of or people lost something else in this particular case the  dismissal of this case would send a very dangerous message to employers and would suggest women in the workplace do all sorts of harassment saying you you can complain and we will do nothing and you can be terminated after you complain and it's ok for your supervisor to continue offensive conduct i think it's just very dangerous and if there is no case that directly addressed the issue it's time for this port because it's clear that there's