case that we had pulled off the docket and goalie versus office depot and you got my name i got y claims that she was the only caucasian employee in her store location and that basically from the start of her employment she was subjected to sexual harassment physical threats not sexual harassment disparate treatments because of her race and then over the course of her year plus with employment she complained multiple times to the store and to corporate and was actually ruled that adverse employment actions can be component acts of a hostile work environment claim see the second circuit and patterson v i'm suggesting to you that hostile acts you have to have one of those hostile environment acts within three hundred days and the last hostile environment  we ledge are missing goalie alleges in her documents that basically the terminations is the combination of a retaliatory and discriminatory hostile work environment that includes all these claims of sexual harassment  absolutely true marc probably you probably need that usually but the question is when you focus on an act if somebody comes up and says to you i really like your new glasses today that would mean well again i don't think carried out in her complaint and i think it's more than three hundred eight well we can't it does aggregate sexual harassment from sure non sexual harassment from discriminatory harassment from retaliatory harassment it's a hostile work environment there are different types of harassment but one hostile work environment claim both based on multi used necrophilia tory harassment correct well i'm not sure that's alleged either you have a bunch of claims and they're all  blurred and combined in the district court tried to sort them out and sorted out a hostile work environment said that last act was more than three hundred eighty days i mean three hundred days and you're suggesting that the only act that falls within the three hundred days ok well can i provide a one more point on the other issues so you know i do want to emphasize that we shouldn't be desegregating retaliation retaliatory harassment retaliation can't separate them from the sexual harassment yes you're correct there is no allegation of sexual harassment with just three hundred why because this one her is one or one hostile work environment i would direct your attention to the first circuit case  the city of providence to thirty five third federal seven thirteen as well as the six circuit case williams vs general motors corp is one eighty seven third federal fifty three both of these cases recognize that you frequently have these hostile work environments where there sexual harassment there is opposition by the employee to the sexual harassment and then there's retaliation by the actors involved in the sexual harassment it's all one hostile work environment that's the claim that miscible is making here so i don't i think it would be an error to separate and look at and ask whether she separately stated a claim for retaliatory harassment whether she separately stated a claim for sexual harassment whether she separately is to blame for discriminatory harassment question is whether all these allegations together state a claim or a hostile work environment and our answer that question is is absolutely now on the dismissed those those claims on the grounds that they weren't stated in the charge so the question you know we need to discuss is what is the charge here our position is that that's video continuation sheet issue correct our contention is that while these are two separate documents the charge in the continuation sheets or the charge continuation sheet page one  huge they didn't for any of them they forwarded just the at the charge form itself to the to office depot allegedly i mean that it was the importance of the boy or didn't get the continuation sheet that's there that's what they if they're looking at the charge and they say see a language indicating that there is more documentation they should call up the u c and say where is the additional documentation i mean anecdotally this is about where the regulations  troll and again your honor the continuation sheets are the charge and this is something that's routine basis charge talks about that it says or you can put you can use of continuation sheets on the jar exactly it says go ahead and do it and i weakly if they are found a week later they would have been on timely so what makes where they are found within the they were filed on the two hundred ninety ninth day after her her ter not really even a relevant question here there's a wealth of information in the in pain patients i mean if yeah they're long it's twenty some pages and there the the issue is that going in the charge said see attached the continuation sheets there they were dropped off the next day at office depot i mean it's not like ballasts case where there's some later letter sent into the city said please amend this missive only says right on the actual charge form see attached continuation sheets again this is something routine procedure that us right on the two hundred ninety eight day when mr goalies sent in just the continuation just the charge form itself she hadn't submitted all the documentation that she intended to be part of her or her charge i complained about the lack of training refusal to train expectations i should have taken training home with me rather than do it on paid time resulted in and getting a disciplinary action have put in my file  does state they fired me on october thirty first two thousand and eight just days after i sent tina simpson an exhibit from a sexual harassment inciden she states i was fired a few days afterwards which i believe was a result combination of the violations i endured in my complaints to corporate in law enforcement and i think really what claims you you asserting now you're that right and retaliation for a cause for making those claims of complaining to corporate of race discrimination and sexual harassment and the rate of sexual the basis for making those claims that she was the workplace was hostile by reason of her being a female and by reason of her being in the white correct i mean she she that's included in it but there's a race discrimination claim relating to a determination to find race discrimination she alleges in that when she was terminated the offense that for which she was allegedly terminated was it it was you know basically they're claiming she didn't follow this office depot policy and she says that while all the other african americans at the store they were doing the exact same thing as she did in this situation but there were no f rather than repeat all the arguments that we've made in our briefing papers i just wanted to address one of ms a goalie contends that judge mots misunderstands title seven three hundred a statute of limitations and focuses on his use of the word in his memorandum opinion complaint instead of charge and i just want to discuss that briefly it's although words are important and words matter in this instance there's no change the outcome at no time did office depot contend that title seven pts statute of limitations is tied to the filing of a complaint with the federal court and in granting our motion to dismiss he cites to title seven's provision which is the statute of limitations that deals with must filed with the c within three hundred days of the alleged bad act and so i just wanted to briefly raise that issue i don't i don't see it as much of an issue but i wanted to hit on it because which is the issue of judge motss memorandum if you did come up with that idea in court the judge came up with you could you didn't come up with a judge came up with that idea you can we don't do it we argue have  i don't know that it was a post hoc argument i think it was go ahead below in our best day let's set that aside for a moment and include the continuation pages why is there forty forty three he said that i complained about a lot of training refusal to train and taking train home every sultan in my getting disciplinary action with my wife that i was respectfully that going to the the substance of the continuation sheets necessarily overlooks the predicate which is in order to look at the substance in those documents  zero one point twelve require it's a three a clear and concise statement of the facts including pertinent deets i'm aware of the case law that says we that the courts know that complaining parties charging parties are not experienced lawyers and don't necessarily know how to write things the right way but even the most liberal control reading of these attachment sheets leaves one as it did judge motss he says in his memorandum opinion there are so rambling and confusing that they violate the statute the e e o c is implementing regula complaints to corporate law or so with that b s vision stated claim of retaliation i think it is a sufficient sufficiently stated claim assuming it was that was part of the charge but it's not whether she says because i i allege that i was retaliated against when i was terminated is that over tally against on what basis i retaliated against because i am gauging prior  statutorily protected activity retaliated against because she was held accountable for poor performance ing and engaging in gross misconduct she doesn't stay and and so unless she identifies the prior protected activity that she engaged in and every television claim then now i don't charging party after it was after the charges filed submitted buncha letters to the commission i shouldn't say a bunch frankly don't recall how many were sent to the commission but the long  joint appendix twenty two is the charge because in march of two thousand and ten the e e o c office backs to office depot a copy of what thousand and one and below in the motion to dismiss before judgments office depot encounter one i'm sorry there's march sixteenth two thousand and eleven is when the c finally got around to providing office depot with notice of the charge and at no time did office depot ever receive a copy of any of the continuing and if you received these you and your lawyer she's not yes right if you can figure that out i can figure that out there that out and you can figure it out all the way through page twenty forty four i'm supposed to where she signs end and puts it same thing at the top on every page your honor in order to accept the plaintiff is a goalie's argument in her the body of her charge she says see attached for general explanation comma and ongoing info also so extending her logic to as to why the continuation sheets which were not contemporaneously filed with the e e o c and which were not served on office depot we would all the other pages were part of the charge my response to that is that it is the e e o c not office depot that has the statutory duty and is the subject matter expert of correctly serving its last question is would that still be part of the charge even though they've messed up decide they determine what the charges and they made a determination what if they're wrong and we conclude that they were wrong that that was not the charge when it's not at all your honor but that i think places just agreed with me earlier that if these two things were continuation sheets were not part of the charge if they were files i think that's what would be the basis that they were not while simultaneously listen if the charge and the continuation sheets were filed weigh in on that that's a determination i know that other deal that the commission another deal that's not the question that you've been i ask you about three times that you have never answered which is whether the continuation what basis could say that the continuation sheets were not part charge that they fail under the e e o c is implementing regs will be part of the charge and may be a defective charge it's the e e o c that decides what constitutes the charge and c had considered that this was a defective charge there is in the statute a mechanism for amending ate deficient charge and that never occurred in this state that wasn't the issue the issue she says see if they do that yes they have the they have the authority otherwise if they were to allow every type of it was a twenty three page single spaced and a b nothing we could do about it you could you could i do we know it still doesn't deprive is still doesn't we the fact that she failed to exhausted ministry of remedies still that her hurdle still has not been overcome because when together a cork at the e e o c makes a mistake and they always send your page twenty two we're trying to get at is it your position that because of the clerk's error at yossi the plaintiff is not allowed to cal pages twenty to forty five and that example is part of the charge if she contends that the e e o c committed in error and how it construed the charge you just don't want to answer the question no i know it's a that's a bad procedure for lawyers that come down here you should come down here and answer the judge college or circuit case written by were chief judge  exhausted administrative remedies and in the alternative he held that even if we counted those twenty two to twenty three continuation sheets and it's in is footnote one your honour's of judge mo memorandum opinion which is on joining appendix page forty eight he held that the plaintiff asserts that allegations concerning her planes or race discrimination retaliation religious discrimination or containing continuation she's appended to her e e o c complaint there is no evidence however that the continuation sheets were ever provided to office depot that's correct your purpose is one target holding any older that's right you honor because then he goes on more over the description of the basically the long and short of it is that the the content of the continuation sheets is as judge mots determined based on reviewing them so just jointed and rambling it is not sufficiently focused to alert either the e e o c or office depot to the claims that the plaintiff now seeks to resurrect and so i think that this hypothetical issue that you've been addressing was considered by judge instance a number of things might happen the from a practical standpoint the respondent would never or the employer would not be served a copy of that charge and so the commission eventually would get around to either sending a letter to before resorting to litigation and the reason that congress wrote the statute of limitations as it did as three hundred days i'm assuming they want today to limit ok the reason that honor and balance point goes on to describe how it the fourth circuit at great length went through the congressional history of the statute of limitations and the that understood i'm her cover sheet on day ten and she files the continuation sheets on you say in principle that that the fact of the charge is that by saying what you are we say we don't decide who files the charge properly it is the commission in the  in sixteen zero one point twelve a five b which provides that if the commission determines that there's a fault in charge tomorrow and then tomorrow you file the attachment sheet and it says this is an attachment and part of my complaint filed yesterday can you do that yes if you want to go if you want to go into the commission and say i insist on filing this charge it is completely vega has nothing in it and it says see attached to my article that it was a cover sheet like this but it's clear it says on the cover sheet i'm filing a general charge based on a b and c that details will be attached i'm going to file those tomorrow and on tomorrow the cover sheet says this is the attachment to the  scenario we have here today baghdad leader best authority at this present moment and i can see that it's factually distinguishable but the analysis that the four circuit used applies directly in this case the other case that is on point in this action for failure exhaust is the miles case and in the in the plaintiff's papers she points out that the fact that she checked off certain boxes is sufficient in and of itself to provide the respondent with notice of the charge and an opportunity to respond but what we have in this case is that the charge itself contains no information again my argument assumes that the charge is real when you say the charge you're referring to page twenty two i'm a joint your honor i refer you are excluding the other the all the continuation sheet that's filed on right through to do ninety nine and that's precisely what we understand the ok but when he says the charge to reverse all of that's ok thank you thank you your hon thank your honor just a few quick points i want to emphasize that mr goalie did everything she should have done could have done to make sure these continuation sheets were properly presented to the  all and point out that that was never an argument raised for that before the district court so we haven't had an opportunity to develop an actual record on why there is that one putting that issue aside i don't think that there's any authority office depot certainly can point any to any that would say that this is you know filing the charge form on on day two ninety eight saying i have additional sheets providing the additional sheets on day two ninety nine steve you can point to any authority whatsoever that says this is an incomplete chargers vision charge other paperwork is submitted timely what would have happened on top of page twenty three of the language in bold and it's top and all the other pages would have if you would have when the put that on there and you just had the tabs difference i suppose we would have to look and see if the charge form c provides on j twenty two indicates that there are continuation sheets if there's an indication as here that there are continuation sheets and there's no other reasonable conclusion to draw but that the continuation you take the bold print out i mean i think every all things together considering the charge form on j twenty two says that there is continuation sheets the a c gets the continuation and neither counsels been frankly that particularly helpful and get that i think the legal principle that is is ones that has to be decided on a case by case basis is there something that  wrote a rambling recitation of her notes that she took every day at work or whatever they were i mean i must say that this is about as difficult as you get to read and i mean i just have to emphasize the a holding in the alternative for one of its what would you say is our standard review for that alternative holding that even if we accept all these additional pages as as a matter of of law you can determine whether this this meets what if you standards there are what if we agree that it is too rambling to really comprehend one on what would be the thing if it's too rambling to understand what's going on i mean if it's too rambling then i suppose then she i don't know if there is a sanction i haven't seen and concluded that it would be a fai any statute there's no pleading standard this is an understood and missed monoculars and what he's saying he says you can understand it respectfully your honor you can't understand the the charge or the continuation shoots their long they're just conceded up here that the passage that you read your honor is understandable as a retaliation claim yeah yeah there's it takes a long time to get to it but when you come down to it when miss a goalie specifically says i was terminated after error because i submitted documents in a sexual harassment claim there's no ambiguity there it's absolutely understandable by reading the document yeah it's going to take a long time to read the entire thing but