that after that she knew she was going to be gone from the university for she was going to be in topeka on that is it's very impressive that she didn't ask the university any actions investigator discipline i think it's a fair believe the best evidence of what was said in that meeting all she says at the end of that script is like please help me so she asks for assistance that she doesn't ask for any specific form of assistance like investigation or transfer or any of the other things  flood i think that i mean we know are legally available to her but the requirement for putting the university on notice is not i would submit is not that she which is another six reston case within the university setting that decision was filed in august fifteenth two thousand and three about two and a half months ago the situation that is presented to this court on  called no tangible employment action claim for lack of a better term awesome environments that's rason and then the question as far as what's been presented by either briefing is whether the employer  has effectively presented the affirmative defense that is available in a hostile environment case and that is whether they exercise reasonable care once they knew or should have known of the sex preventative or corrective opportunities for vide by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise the briefing presents an even narrow issue on the first prong of this reasonable care test that is the extra employee exercise reasonable care to prevent for correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior then i believe it's now even further that point and i focus on the words that they take the employer exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct and that the point that has been raised on appeal is that it's that there's no challenge to the any of the employer's actions and only to that one word correct that the position that is being taken by the plaintiff appellant is that sexual harassment must have occurred and no action was taken to correct it police maintaining that they did an investigation they found that there was no sexual harassment that actually occurred and that's the reason why there was no corrective action so what the plaintiff wants you to do is just say that even though we need that determination which necessarily means that we would not take corrective action that the very fact that there's no corrective action taken means that the employer feels that that first is based upon the judge's trial judge's order and the one question the fact that she found and i think you need to appreciate the context in which this particular question of fact w amount of evidence introduced another point she mentions that there were voluminous papers to notify the parties also as part of the supplemental record is the affidavit of declaration of new round of information which basically stated that none of that is the is the subject of the sex harassment claim was consensual all that the judge could find that was basically looking through the record herself as opposed to it being shown to her or directed to her by the plaintiffs was that some of dr okamura as contacts were unwelcome i submit that holly case where justice rinehart felt that the summary judgment was appropriate probably granted in favor of the defendants because the plaintiff in that case failed to show any evidence of a connection between what all you have before that's this part presented by the trial judge is that there were some contacts that were unwelcome i think appropriately the trial judge said that that was a plea that was sufficient to save la result in battery against dr okamura but there's absolutely no connection that's presented by that question of fact regarding anything whether those contacts were of the sexual nature communicated at that meeting i posit that even if you assume that that information was conveyed here you will find also in the record that in the judge's order in quoting from the opportunities in that case it was found that the plaintiffs failed that test because they waited one year after the harassment started the alleged harassment stalking and therefore the death prong was satisfied for for a reasonable failure to take vantage of these programs now there's nothing that's been presented to this court by the plaintiffs regarding the sexual harassment policies that have been promulgated by the university of hawaii in many substantial and the guity or if there is clarity as to what was conveyed at that meeting it comes from dr han there and we have absolutely we have conflicting testimony with regard to the scr of that investigation actually did take place take place it took place two years later after the formal procedures were actually involved but that investigation would have covered the same ground if the investigation occurred today i believe he was he had a legal obligation to proceed with the matter and i would assume that that would have been a likely step for him to take in and in fact when when the university admits it first came to life because pursu excerpts where the question is asked what is your recollection as to the extent to which you followed this craft at the actual meeting and the answer i know i took it with me i know that it was very important that i not cry because i wanted to get through the script and that there was certain there were certain things that i wanted to make sure that he clearly knew and the only really other thing other than knowing that i probably only had coffee and that we were in a booth is that i talked  really fast trying to get a lot out and then i started losing it i don't remember anything after that question when you say you started losing it what happened answer i was under a terrific amount of medications much more than what i am taking right now between the emotional stimulation and the medication i cried a lot very discreetly in a public place and i was extremely embarrassed question to differential from completely going through the script with dr hammet at that time an i member i believe that he got this message but i don't remember whether i went page by page or told him everything or gave him a copy or anything i don't know that is i think a fairly accurate a relationship developed with dr okamura and dr hammet in ninety seven ninety eight and then he's heat from what i understood he was trying to take that relationship and say that he was so that they were talking about a period in ninety very best evidence that they can provide does not provide does not resent the kind of connection that i believe this court would require to defeat summary judgment it boils down to actually created as a question of fact and even if you were to look at that question of the fact as discussed by the trial judge she makes a point of saying i'm not saying that this would be she if she infers that even that little bit would probably be unpersuasive at trial need university was put on the list i would like to go through a couple of more points on that and i have apologized for if i'm becoming too repetitious on the excerpt but since  information in my script that i spent quite a bit of plan preparing for so that because of my emotional state i would be able to impart all the information necessary to him to make sure that he had the full picture now even in this what i just quoted she does make the statement i don't recall the conversation at all but that's in the midst of giving certain details like i used to work the last column so i would say that those kinds of statements