as to constitute sexual harassment well that question i think can be easily answer based on the evidence of the defendant's own director of human resources in addition the reason why we believe that the oh why do so in other words we don't have to have hearings we just can't follow what someone in the corporation thought well if i understand inference that the conduct with severe and pervasive is based on the fact that the terminations letter for mr lord's her raster that is nick remember that terminations letter which was drafted by the director of human resources stated that mr lord was the subject or he was subjected to sexual harassment and the deposition testimony of the director of human resources maggie poland she testified in her deposition that the word was sexually harassed i asked this question so then in my his gender or that reimer is homo sexual or bisexual you don't you don't argue any of that right well i don't argue that this this case fit neatly in the three methods that the supreme court in the holly case established but there is an argument that can be made and and based on the supreme court's own problem is that the employer peers to deem any on one count touching is sexual harassment but that's not the legal definition for title interpret ing the policy when they terminate nick reamer and they say that new bremer impeached in sexual harassment against ryan ward then i think that satisfies the severe and pervasive ness or the objective and reasonable the standard to establish the fear and per pervasive conduct so so another words if an employer thought that if one man kissed another man on the top of his head if the employer thought that was sexual harassment that would be enough well i think it would be enough to go to a jury if if if an employer or somebody outside of the victim believed that that he was subject to harassment because we know that in order to establish sexual harassment it needs to be subjectively reasonable as well as objectively reasonable so what the victim believes that he subjective subjectively a victim of harassment and then we've got somebody else the employer saying that he was a victim of harassment i think that's enough to establish an inference that the conduct was severe pervasive and pointed to sexual harassment so based on nant that is the reason why we believe that the the district court had erroneous lee granted summary judgment in favor of h p s regarding the plain claim of same sex sexual harassment the audio bug joke doesn't fall in that category right of sexual harassment well it's certainly not same sex sexual harassment and well  i believe i'm into my two minute rebuttal so i'd like to but finish certainly situation and which an employee who doesn't report harassment immediately is faced with possible discharge if he later seeks to stop the harassment and other words have title seven i disagree judge in fact that the position we take is that it's a policy that encourages reporting first of all this was a directive a personal directive given to mr lord because he had abused it in the first place with the audiobook for he had waited for months after months that harassment stopped and in march he had waited until july in fact he wasn't even the one who initially brought that attention brought the issue to the attention of the human resources office manager maybe both she's the one who spotted it in an e mail that mr lord had never set so she's actually doing the due diligence on that and following up and he seizes on that opportunity so the personal directive that is given to mr lord is a consequence of his own previous conduct manipulating here's why telling him that not spilled ice in other cases tell us the context matters in these cases right the work environment matters by telling mr lord specifically in june eighth this is a creative environment full of creative individuals you need to be more affirmative in how you object that if this is something that bothers you you need to let us know and you were directed to let us know immediately they told them it three tops this is a policy trying to help you in the workplace not trying to trap you in the workplace trying to help in the workplace come to us when you have a problem don't wait until we have the feeling that you're manipulating this time the timing of this sort of protect your own job if the employer title seven doesn't mandate a particular protocol for  harassment policy that leaves it up to the employer to figure out what's best for it's working for the employer wants to assume those added responsibilities of potentially getting charge after charge or claim after claim of the claim or notice that notice that notice it's free to do th circumstance so different is that he breached it the first time there was a sense that he was doing it to protect his own job he had waited months to do so and so they gave him a clear directive for that extra and he preached to the yeah that's he had not been subjected to sexual harassment she had the chance to ice this supervisors that you know if you bring up or complain to the cop it could result in your terminate also this is you know what i am a victim of sexual harassment that was on a friday he thought more of it over the weekend and as soon as might be seen around the corner he went to his office and reported that he had been a victim of sexual harassment that he reported the sexual harassment within forty eight hours he was terminated at and within twenty four hours of saying that he was this post reporting the sexual harassment to the e e o c at ikea h r he had been terminated