far more often than towards the men carol christopher for example said that quote unquote every day she experienced some kind of abuse of the havior from harvey whether it be screaming and yelling and shaking his fist in her face or pointing a finger at her and yelling footsteps walking down the hall her hair would stand up she felt like she was working with a ticking time bomb that the men talked about tom harvey in a very different way mark jones for example said that harvey raised his voice with him only on a you know at the met and there was a difference with the man harvey might you know but the people in his office described in the office described as more like bantering at the end of the day they describe that harvey pitt would be in his office with the men laughing and joking it was different with the women at the end of the day there wasn't laughing and joking with the women just arriving was nasty abused physically intimidating treatment of them by harvey again for example christopher  overt in saying i don't like you folks i don't like that you do i don't like women but you're relying on the fact that if we look at their record and how we do proven to be one even though it's very you know everybody right there that it was different and it toward women it was really significant is the fact that somewhere in the record i remember that it seemed as though that the women employees most of the spirit in the office and most of the travel was done by the men so there was some sort of illusion there that there are some sort of talk there the was considerable evidence that that's not just what was going on because then that there were men who were in the office and the evidence indicates that when they were there he did treat them differently did he have with them last they talked about most of the men talked about the court said even if it were the same it's possible i think relying on alice and be pretty that the women could have a claim based upon the effects of the behavior on them it really depends i was concerned about that because that's a very sort of a very difficult issue very hard circuit and if you had the woman employed if you're a man employed here and he decided to sort of figure out of both of you know and so he takes it out on the woman first and then he said the same about the difference in treatment between women and men because that's really what this case boils down to i'm calling it's clear that where you offer comparative evidence of treatment between the sexes that workplace and well after the period of discrimination described in there you know if the charges in this record therefore there is testimony from them concerning perhaps three incidents do it seems to me that some of them in testified about how their treatment differed from what they thought the women's treatment was that i misread that somewhere there was testimony from witnesses i believe outside mr harvey and this is christopher that he described as a racehorse interactions yelling abusive and there was obviously testimony from from my clients in the record a  both both the district court and any alaska would have two points held to a higher standard than showing three different treatment of women and men the ruling when the court casually states the harvey yelled at me as well as women given the disparity of treatment shown in the evidence to the statement was a totally inappropriate and meaningless observation on the part of the district court district court as i was just correcting those quickly here the district court noticed that the women may react differently from the treatment than the men but i don't see where the district court indicated think office was in any event mostly women so the fact that women would be experiencing more blowups from a supervisor would not be at all surprising  sticking strictly with him though with the difference of treatment between men and women to skip it is that what else is in their records it was true from your point of view that would show if the man and the women were treated the same following the incident he described he said although it's fairly he's taller than harvey who he describes fairly short he was yelled at numerous times he testified that one encounter quote scared the hell out of him left him feeling shaking trembling and women are more vulnerable to the type of behavior this bully likes to indulge in and he finds them more vulnerable so he has more fun bowling why wouldn't that of who this person is regards to anything here is zero any and i mean you're going to do your job right or else yeah if that's the case and if if there's more women there and they're doing more of the job facts but it seemed to me every time he yelled he yelled at the person because of what they were doing or not doing now i may be wrong that's the way i perceive records now if that's the case then the next step has to be that average threw us all out of business then he does something extra toward the man regardless of how each one of those persons takes in this beating he does something extra toward demand to show that he's being bring that he's treating the women more harshly and there is where you drop into the into the gender sex thing because you've got to show the difference in your criticism of your job performance regardless of your of your gender at that point the thing you treat the man a little bit differently even though they all were being berated because of their performance of their jobs to what i'm saying yes now and where would you say show me to go in the records and continue to read to show that these men got it after everything going to be that because of the way to doing because one or more good course are supposed to reflect on her childhood memories of sixth grade school yard bullies i can remember one case where the boy it was a female she was bigger than the boys believe is that because there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that anything mr harvey did to anyone was based on sex or because of sex that's just simply didn't make it over the hurdle now what do you mean or you're case so that's what i was going with what do i understand him to me i guess i understand him to mean the same thing i saw when i wrote the summary judgment motion and and attention to the record which is that there is no employer of the teachers had dictated to the school districts who were poor it was that they could not hire the plaintiffs in that case or other teachers who didn't pass a test that was allegedly discriminatory the school districts the employers had no choice as the court put it at the state at the theoretical and practical control over who could teach in these schools and therefore the court said is it would be a loophole in the statute if a claim could not be allowed against the only party that is the key under this doctrine is that the i'm forty or must be in a situation of theoretical and practical control over the relationship between the employees who are complaining and their employer and must that control to interfere with the relationship in a discriminatory way and so in that district maritime safety because the employer association that ensued was not itself responsible for supervising or disciplining the individuals who executive director or the other floyds in this program will be doing it a certain very limited rights to insist on certain things as a result of putting up money in this program but as w explained in the brief if you go through all of those provisions none of them out to give me any a any authority to do it in any way what that individual will do in his dealings with the staff so when the he or she should be conducting his or her job on any basis for any reason in any state at any time so we do not have in the ongoing relationship such as it is between harvey to marshall's testimony and all the others just not make the decision hard after interview made the decision harvey was the person that we will fake it's also in the record we decided in our grief that when about a year later yet the case of the most recent cases of andersen talks about a peculiar control over the workplace and we would submit that if your employees are supervising the workplace you briefly on the whistle issue the record will show what five seventy three of the whistles were issued in february two thousand and one which was again after the period of discrimination that is that issue here