in starting the process however she was slammed i guess you'd say by the district court right from the get go when they filed in court decided that  gave the lead roofs sued to sue for you to sue right after that all right well after you got that letter how much time elapsed before that they're saying that you can't to and it's not the only way to write well the length of time i believe is probably not in your favor that's where they're saying that but the only thing that you could do if you had the evidence to resumption absent contrary evidence that the actual notice was actually sent and received at a certain time well we presented evidence that it was not in the form of my own testimony for one for every two to three days on well that didn't mean that i didn't check my mail and of course at the same time on yelling at the e e o c as regional director to please send me the right to sue letter it just makes no sense circumstances that you need to fit in with you know whether or not this person currently was sexually assaulted three times and when a fourth man came on or whether or not her actions were reasonable whether or not she's objective the perceive employees defensive card that is a reasonable and the employee cannot be terminated for doing so this gives rise to the question of why or the conduct by the attacker if you will that was casey's in the form of two complaints that were made by the female employees of the office men that were not investigated did nothing about it and in fact a lower level employee took it upon himself to quote unquote step up to the plate and talk in a park in the sky about what he was doing or the store manager did nothing then when he attacks warren proximately six months later the store manager didn't know it was the same person because she never even talked on the first one so she reviewed videotapes of it over an hour for her deposition testimony viewing the surveillance tape she characterize warning without conducting any investigation without reviewing any day and so when you put those together it is not and i don't want to confuse the issue because  due respect the good job of trying to throw a red herring in here about whether or not the prior instances of conduct by this man constituted sexual harassment and that's really not point here the point is that henri excusing the store manager as sworn under oath that this was a situation where it was the straw that broke the camel's back which by definition means if you don't have that str inappropriate was successful at the district court level was and that's a good point too to reference to the prior complains there was one single prior point involving this fellow that involved two female employees the few know who he is reported that he would call them around during their shi it difficult for them if you work there was some reference that the mind of god and flirtatious and mentions some type of sexual matter with these two employees and this one report that was received once it was there and now he should actually back up or something like that and so that employee that was typically on duty approached him i think it was actually the very same day well you see told him that the customer that these two him you know boys did not appreciate him talking to them and that he would need to stop and that the next time it happened the police would be called and he would be banned from the store the response he got from the customer what the customer was quote very apologetic very sorry said he didn't realize that the employees were so many and that it would happen and thereafter the customer continued to visit the store but was not talking to the i think there was an end to end to indicate that there was really the one vital force under ensure that prior incidents would be accurate when it really just a customer having conversations that the other people felt for annoying sue which in this case was understandably issue june fourth two thousand and fourteen plaintiff filed their complaint two hundred seventeen days later more than twice as long as she would have either one of them allowed on january seventh and tell them that there's really no excuse for that that's what the district court found and there were actually a couple of options available to the claimant other than just plain letting the statute of limitations expire and later seeking an equitable whole plan softens included one bringing all their claims state and federal wasn't anyone that actually both notices from both the state and the e e o c that were issued all or were pretty clear is their issue many times to many people you need to be filing these things nine is as right on there this many days from the date of the of the notice and so i could go back then some of the facts i would want to point out as we're talking about the interaction on the night in question is undisputed ms hale's never at any point during their approximate half hour conversation ever asked the customer leave she never contacted the police even though coincidentally a couple of police officers came into the store while they were in there discussing nothing was said to them if she didn't contact police afterwards that's got raises a month and a half long boy who had knowledge in her month and after a year she never called me the river supervisors the one or the store she was a or her own store supervisor and in fact she never even reported this incident to her own counsel of record father who she was living with at the time until days later to go to that's the issue that was addressed in the motion in limine the interest in the expert or the court obviously excluded that evidence not just one ground on to the first of which was being that it was irrelevant to the issues presented and that's where i think you probably goes we believe that actually the relevant evidence and what happened that night what the play of can testify to or not so much what might have happened then unknown are entirely distinct circumstances but this  would go towards the retaliation count more than ok which the court did to reject for several reasons one of which being that the response here wasn't a reasonable response in the circumstances under either objective or subjective decision and the larger sense of the word saying that this young woman ravaged problem could found something else perhaps to do why wasn't it justified or at least understandable unexplainable in the circumstances the crusie coach stores a case where a person slaps their alleged harasser in the court stated that even assuming are you window that the plaintiff did so in response to title seven bar rassmann it was not a protected activity  that it was received on june two thousand and fifteen was lastly their testimony in the record to that effect i believe it's actually included within the complaint actually it came about maybe in the first or second amended complain third nine months later you know all that i just know that that is the contention that they're making as best we intel it's simply their own self serving testimony that they must arrive nine months later for someone no reason that the us even though the it finally got to the point where the man started telling me what he liked sexually i decided i'd had enough and reported this to the storeroom and you sure it models the store manager responded by telling me that if i didn't like you i could tell the man to have this exchange