had occurred prior to her promise to court action and then even after that look i ask you this because our case is really just about race or color and it's spread and so i want to kind of get to that appreciate the background but we've we've had the benefit of  let's assume argue window that welsh one is a decision on the merits of the statue of limitations in other words welsh one held stache limitation board that action and that that in turn is race judicata on whatever would be ra judicata ok then my question would be you're saying well some of this stuff came up subsequently you know things were evolving over time this is a dynamic relationship and it can't be race you can't even if it's race you caught on something  can't be race to the card on everything is i understand your argument that it's so if so what it where i'm trying to go with this is i would like you to tell me the rule that if we were to announce a rule here's our a chicago works in these situations what is the rule as to how it applies when you have a prior suit that then says everything in that suit so far how does that apply in a subsequent suit when you've had a dynamic series of events spanning all one is a valid determination that limitations barred the welsh one action wherever that means apply your rule to i'm calling on the first case obviously apply your rule to the current case and tell us what barred by any limitations under labor code we would never laid back anything and was well should have the right to do so it's still my argument that and if there is a bright line rule that we have to live with and i can understand things that happened before that phone that lawsuit would  we were in the limitations period would not be barbaric you caught it because they were separatists and within the limitations period essentially as well to this day i mean yes there's arguments about seventy mandirs diction and whether or not their initial claim was based on on on the merits i mean yes those ax the two thousand and twelve action even race your kind of the problem you have here is that you've got this dynamic situation where according to his welsh and taking her allegations is true because we're not dealing with the facts of the case we're dealing with race you're caught in an affirmative defense she's continuing to be discriminated against and in fact the prior filings is causing retaliation down the road so there's continuing to be at let's say that it was acts of physical sexual harassment the fact that you have one case about that doesn't mean somebody can't keep doing that can't keep coming up and you know robbing you or whatever they're doing and so you can't be trying to articulate a rule where the day before the case is dismissed there were some episodes like that and you didn't immediately of a minute therefore now you're barred so what is your role now have asked for his role what is your rule that encompasses a dynamic sort of continuing scenario where there's continuing act let's say the day before let's say there's going to be a summary judgment hearing you know tomorrow and so then today the school discriminates against her in some way takes away cuts her salary takes away some benefits something like  that first of all she has to exhaust that second of all she has to file a motion for leave to a man and all of that has to happen that day according to use or her lawyer has because every day they done anything to date during the day has to go through research that make sure that he's verify things satisfy his rule of an obligation all that and all that has to happen within twenty four hours that's what i'm saying our law is what i'm saying is that where there is an existing davis to had occurred before davis one so we weren't dealing with this jumping around that you're arguing for wasn't at issue there the having to keep running around to get a fiery a c that twenty four hours to do it if they if they if she was molested the night before the surgery just hearing the warning of a server judgment hearing on the way to it all of that would have to be brought to me is just impractical the rule that you're that you're saying and it's not what davis was when you say the same transaction what if it were let's say that she was alleging that so that people were physically assaulting her but it was a different person in one case in case number one it was the principal  case number two it was the assistant principal and i'm this is completely hypothetical i know that didn't occur would you say that's a sane transaction absolutely ok and the reason it's basically everybody in the school district can  molestation to meet it if you have to ask the district court and the parties what is a convenient trial you need to try this these most asian issues it absolutely has to be in the same had the ability to ask the district for the first day of the proceedings the second fundamental principle that i think weighs in on this of you on this issue is that you know that old maxim the law age forty of the school district regina how to intentionally discriminate against her make her life miserable those are allegations we all know that none of that and never reach accord and would never school history a taxpayer funded into the has already now defended against two pieces of litigation brought by this world and has had both of them dismissed based on these principles of res seems completely impractical on the other hand your rule is a little hard to get your arms around to i kind of feel like we need a bright line rule that is consistent with the preexisting case law and makes sense it doesn't park to jump around but doesn't because he raised the countervailing point which is the constant serial litigation you win one and there they go again another because you can always find some slight some issue that you don't like going on if you're working somewhere you're not always happy every