a university like do you manage the end of force expectations regarding raul's relationships between facts and students and i think it's a general proposition yes  faculty and student roles when the expectations that are being forced collide with this notion that's also well settled in the law which is that you cannot use sex or gender or sex  terrio types in the way employers handles its employees and so i think that well generally white university such as do you to be able to manage teacher student roles once gender becomes part of fear factor or part of their consideration i think at that point they cross the the title seven title not in line and they're actually establishing driven by that that was what was going on here was that it was a male professor and a female student in fact barbara jackson sent so much she said that she one of the reason why this again it's a male faculty member it's a female student and so what i think's going on here is that because like to just jumped in with him that that doesn't help that that's that statement simply says it's because of the opposite gender is a male and a female that is not inconsistent or hostile to a similar statement that might have been made of the fact that warranted it if it were a female supervisor and i mean all this doesn't say anything other than he says one's a male and once a female it will be but what it does not is this is not it to me a statement that is because this person was a male if if we were just talking about i don't gossip about a relationship then i would agree with the court but we're not talking about that what happened here was that there were perceptions that there was a quote unquote inappropriate relationship  sexual relationship between this faculty member and this student in fact there was none but nevertheless driven by those perceptions the faculty member was accused by supervisor of stalking and being obsessed and having a perverted relationship with this student as a result of those allegations he was investigated the university looked into this and sally no basis what soever for the conclusion with the allegation that there was any kind of romantic or sexual relationship at all and nevertheless they pursued a right to discipline him and they issued a warning letter to him which is in the record basically saying that because of perceptions about your role with this student even though there is no basis for it we were warning you that if you continue  inconsistent with what we think is appropriate without ever explaining that you are under threat of true relation for cos well how do you get around all the allegations that dr made that the motivation here was to force him to resign so he could get rid of the real estate well i think that what we'll do with those those are specific ellie geishas by your point i think my client was making statements that there were many reasons why are you chaps and his supervisor wanted to get rid of them and frankly people do things for many many different reasons some of them are consistent some of them are case the courts recognized that employers ask for many different reasons and the point here is that what you make that statement in your own deal was that was  actors can could have different motivations there are conflicting or dual were many the boss that decision but just course it makes this very very clear that once an impermissible you but i didn't say anything that there was a dual motive i thought that the way i read it was that that was the only motive and that the sexual sexual allegations were simply  and what happened was as soon as margaret jackson became the supervisor in the department and this was in two thousand and thirteen she sat down several freshers say i want to get rid of all relating to that what happened was over the course of the next two years there were widely circulated rumors and those that's also spelled out in the briefing below zero a sexual relationship and those rumors come to a head in many of two thousand and fifteen when barbara jackson accuses broke of stork eem this oh this this student having obsessive in a perverted relationship with ok we're on going after your head but then as as your life things evolved and things developed and i think it's an unfair characterization to say that throw in the lower court proceedings said that the only reason why barbara jackson was acting towards him was because of an academic dispute and he certainly never said that the only watercooler about who's sleeping with whom if it may have stored it that way and there's plenty of evidence in the record that for two years that kind of unfortunate national interest was going on but this problem and this case really took off when professor throat was falsely accused based on perception it's not fact of having an obsessive perverted relationship and that launched this investigation leading to his reprimand program and was beat wasn't the concern that it was a student teacher relationship wasn't that the main thing that they said was well i think that's how you run it they're trying to displace it today trying to say that that's the way this place that they didn't do well i didn't see any i didn't see any statement below that we're investigating this because men do not have these present relationships with women it was that a professor should know that this kind of relationship with a student yes but then what they were saying was that he's too emotionally connected with her and that it's a male faculty member and a female student has the fact that was the facts but that wasn't the statement that what is in me their concern was the but when the faculty relationship well i obsessive relationship and that these were all simply stereotypes wasn't it mr rose acknowledged testimony that he said that this young lady is wacky when she is on her period was when it mr throats acknowledgement that he had was concerned that she wasn't returning his phone calls and he would go to the coffee wasn't his statement to the young lady about why he should get reimbursed for her ticket but she was his significant other if i have a subordinate of the opposite gender and i describe that person as my significant other if i say these wild things about her i mean it under clinically had an obligation to investigate these concerts and they did and repeatedly what they were told with there was no basis for that in fact they made that determination the e u people investigated this in found no basis at all for the suggestion that there was some sort of inappropriate relationship and nevertheless management decided i have a question that it probably doesn't isn't dispositive so don't take time much time out of it when everybody's talking about whether it is discrimination based upon sex they seem to talk about that based upon meaning motivation what is well motivated or could we have it based upon sex claim that is not motivated by gender discrimination but motivated by something quite innocent that for example a motivation of trying to get rid of the real estate people but the means not the motivation but the means for accomplishing a nondiscriminatory motive is to use sexual my question if i have an innocent motivation but i choose to weaponize sex to accomplish that on sexual motivation would that be on the basis of of sex i think that there's a reason potential ambiguity there it may not be as narrow as simply part of asia and the mechanisms or the weaponry used to accomplish that but that was my only question if you had any clear female friendship i think she deemed it as friends with benefits which suggests that she might view a male professor's relationship differently than a female professor's relationship office gossip and rumors about and sexual relationship without more are not necessarily because of sex here we have both situation if a supervisor initiate rumors sparks rumors that a male professor is is obsessed refer to the past the case but at some point could there not be a reasonable inference that a supervisor tennessee is a judge or bill's excellent phrase benefits one statement by one person who was on the collective d committee that made the management decisions as to mistreat or at least talk but what we would have to say is that one  statement was either inside edition to go forward with jury or we would have to say that that statement was itself not a discriminatory sex basically he was simply using the words male and female in the context that was the facts before them and it wasn't a representation of any kind of a stereotype theory in general i think both of those are potential responses but i guess i don't know how you're going to play that well my reading of it