because you expect that of those allegations are true so she didn't need to go to the officer and said that they were so bad it created an inference here that's just one thing that that the investigation did she concluded that there was no sexual harassment wrongly because the comments were made outside the plaintiff's hearing  the people that run it are women and all the people involved in this are men she is the lowest on the rung there was a tremendous urge or a tremendous necessity to be one of the boys and to go along with that in addition this case implemented the entire command structure at the city's parks all men seven out of the eleven command officers were implicated in this name calling it would have been horrific for or for other back to have concluded that there was a real problem here and in fact everyone was going along with this with the city of sparks everyone was putting their head in the ground that she was  interview the seven officers identified as calling names that's so us the charts inadequate she knows that the name calling occurred she says it could be a violation of the sp has no desire to even remotely contemplate addressing or recommending addressing it because her mind is still made up her decision her focus is right there nearly at the ground  actually derogatory names i've got news that evans was very offended she knew that evans would have no way of knowing whether or not this conduct was continuing and other backs that she had no idea if the name calling was continuing and the difference was from the alleged harasser they warn the harasser this could be sexual harassment keep away they took these steps to make sure it was minimum contact in the employee felt good about it least the process there was no evidence that the we know that that claim under the glories case we know that the claim was well preserved all throughout it was argued extensively in trial briefs and motions and women a all the evidence that that came in and hostile work environment and constructive discharge and retaliation as to whether or not the jury think it was retaliation for evans to be prevented from please talk to me i respectfully want to talk with you about this situation please do something about it there was no comment there was never any comment never any response and about two weeks later she filed a l you we care about what's going on we want to protect you from all of this nothing they never met with or ever and i just like to real briefly discuss our cross appeal on this matter  away from this team building which the team building she construed as an opportunity to go in and make friends with guys that were calling her these horrible names it was like so much she was being raped and it was like she had to go out and build a team with then she would always find in favor of the officers and against the complaints that didn't happen in this case and that was evident during the course of this trial on the summer of one nine hundred ninety eight they talked to adams and they asked her you know are you looking through or you want us to look into other areas and she said you know i just want you to determine if this happened i want you guys to do something about it i mean other back in the town like for interview as to what they were saying and whether or not somebody would corroborate there was no corroboration we began and this is another distinction with four we began with an investigation that's based on a rumor from an on the record at one fifty five should these the specialist be true they are violations of the administrative staff for harassment as well as department policies and procedures and possibly crimes so first of all we're kind of the i meant rather the allegations are true  their attorneys so by the time you know the clock is ticking and still is getting uncomfortable things were moving along so she says ok if i talk to them and they say i didn't do it i still don't believe that i'm going to go ahead and accept this accepting that it's true do i have sexual harassment and her focus then was on was this something that would substantially interfere with lieutenant evans performance now that's what she testified to that's what she said i talked to  of the officers was there anything like that she had no connection to the police department big think the police department in any way have anything to do with her salary or her working conditions she was evans discussed what had happened in the past and as she described the events that happened in the past one of them did not appear to be stopped so harassment basically somebody is not talking to new york talking to people who are changing shifts and the other one was an incident were just people that are identified in lieutenant evans initial investigations are investors initial complaint not all of those people are in fact one of the people that was punished more severely is not even one of the people that is mentioned in her  incompetence you know if that's the case and that's the case but it had nothing to do the fact that she was going to rule in favor of a woman against our favor the men against a woman because she was somehow trying to be part of the voice or part of a group as the city is thinking we've got a problem that we need to fix ellen says bluntly at every turn you know they try to do the investigation on the court home you don't have to do it because it might be prejudicial to you that's what they did they knew before  was filed that the last it was coming because they had already heard from counsel so to say that they took a defensive posture and it was you know several months or several weeks later that is not an accurate statement of the right to say something right across i guess i should before my ever stopped her from disciplining employees the only issue was she wanted to just send somebody who had complained about her and deputy chief come and testify we don't just a plan in place for complaining about us we try to fix the complaint that was the issue so the happen as a result of this lawsuit and therefore it helps the department and therefore it was a catalyst and therefore i think that something has happened but i think what the district court neglected to see was that we had already started that process  let me talk about this i investigation for just a second the i investigated began at the same time that our sewer backs investigation began the eye investigator testified he had nothing to do with sexual harassment sexual discrimination he never studied been a problem here but i know that testified on the stand she never spoke to lightfoot after the investigation was over what about she never finished they were planning to make one little point little teeny one here the court has ordered the i investigated and after a year to finally be finished there was things were not working together there was no conjunction between i did back  investigation five officers were given a slap on the rest they were given the lightest possible penalty which was don't do this again what's called a verbal reprimand one guy was given five days off he and a lot of things that i did back could have done she said she could have done she says nothing was necessary whatever revenue it's a it's a matter of whether you can see that there's something that needed to be done and that work environment it's been our really you know who knows why a jury's going to reached reach the conclusions that they reach we were we were surprised