amicus in this case the district judge dismissed my client's hostile work environment claim under section eighty one because the court determined that the comment by the chief financial officer that the people chief financial officer in regards to individuals from the middle east in this case that they are crooks and corn man that not all muslims are terrorists but most of them are that the district court simply dismissed because the court determined that corn man and that most muslims are terrorists are references and enquiries about islam and moroccan culture we believe that is an incorrect  remarks about a very particular ethnic group the arabs it was the arabs that the chief financial officer said our troops and conmen it was the arabs that the chief financial officer said  not all of them but most of them are that remark because he made it was are is is is and comes under section eighty one the district court also dismissed a timely discrimination and retaliation claims  section eighty one and title seven because we were unable to show pretax we believe that there was evidence in here for pretax when my client was the only client that was terminated for the reasons alleged appellate in this case lack of work the only documents that the a police have shown for lack of work is the december sixth twenty twelve e mail the very e mail that was sent seventy five minutes after she had for the first time confronted the chief financial officer calling him a racist that is the only talk in that their produce or court have said that that that it alone is not evidence of the alex we back up to the title seven contributed to the delay or if they are reporting requirement was that a claim of harassment against a chief financial officer must be made to the chief financial officer that we feel that is and you sacral grounds to discrimination and pretax so essentially at this point the defendants and the court believe that we cannot show pretax because we could not rebut the lack of work the fans as i mentioned earlier that there was only one of making racial and stereotypical remarks about folks from are also terminated her that we believe is also sufficient to show pret so no so that brings us to two thousand and twelve and it twenty twelve also the only document there produce according to the request for production of documents again i made a very specific requests it was my are of the number nineteen produce me  notes memoranda documents showing that my client was deemed or deemed to be terminated they produced those two e mails from december sixth twenty twelve that was it that you were being selected essentially and it was an e mail sent from the president mary alexander sent to a third party not even internally within the organization sent to another employer do you have any openings for this go because there's lack of work that is we feel that was the extent of the our evidence for lack of better or some testimony from your client that there were occasions when she herself can see that she was not fully engaged in the work that testimony is actually in dispute you're may please the court this is an appeal from summary judgment which means that this court must feel all evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff must make all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff and must leave all credibility determinations for the jury with respect to the timeliness claim a hostile environment is claim is thai as timely under title seven if one acts contributing to the hostile work environment happened within the limitations period in this case there is evidence that ms sues the supervisor was shankar engaged in intimidating and overwhelming two facts that show that it is related the first is that when he did first meet with her when he first came and took the job in that very first meeting he learned that she was an arab muslim woman from morocco going on and all that  in that meeting he said to her middle easterners can't be trusted they're all out to screw you in the mean and then go with it if that was outside but then one week after telling her this the middle easterners can't be trusted he started coming out and saying so are you work and what are you working on she testified that he did this every five minutes one day that in one day he came and checked on her forty times another time he followed her to a copy machine where she was obviously making copies and said what are you working on are you working are you still working on this on another occasion when he gave her an assignment and five minutes later came out to find out if it was done and it wasn't done because she had been given the assignment five minutes earlier he started snapping his fingers and saying c'mon c'mon monica this is not broken time so the fact that he is linking his excessive scrutiny to these comments that middle easterners can't be trusted th e ought to scare you and this is not moroccan time hurry up that's the link that suggests that at least a reasonable jury could find that the reason for this excessive scrutiny that he only did with her was because he didn't trust her because she was a middle easterner moroccan linked to her protector characteristics and then there is testimony the employer says it wasn't just her he also was just supervising and he supervising johnson on page twenty three of johnson's deposition he testified that the shank all he checked on him on occasion nothing like what suze is describing  the defendant has has argued that this timeliness argument has been waived by the plaintiff and i just like to say the e e o c is not taking a position on a waiver but we do have an interest in seeing that timely discrimination claims are not wrongly just missed and there is evidence in this record from which we think a reasonable jury could find that the claim was timely churning to the merits of the hostile work environment claim whether or not this court rules the title seven claim timely the same standard applies substantively under section one thousand nine hundred one and title seven about what constitutes a hostile work environment and for that reason the e e o c has an interest in this interpretation as well it just intellectual discussions many of the comments were about terrorism others were blatant insults and all of them were directed personally at pursues expressly because of her protected characteristics knowing that she was muslim her supervisor came to her and said i need your input about muslim terrorists why do muslims hate america later told his coworkers or his his the other coworkers they were my muslim and ploy tried to poison me and he asked her if all muslims have a secret language that they can use to communicate with each other it's important to view a hostile work environment from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position outsider because of this conduct she felt humiliated she frequently had to leave work in order to cry for her sister it was her supervisor and it's this court is noted and boy are the effect of harassment by a supervisor is heightened it is true that other cases from the circuit from other circuits have expressed harassment factional instances of harassment involving more conduct more repeated on however the employer filed its brief we submitted a twenty eight day letter showing that the law is really pretty well settled this court hasn't decided but every single circuit court that has looked at this question has said that you can bring an intersection claim discrimination on more than one basis the language of title seven says that you cannot discriminate based on race or religion or sex or national origin and that the use of the word or means the congress meant any or all of these characteristics and in fact there is legislative history showing that congress considered adding the word solely and decided not to do that so at least under title seven it is clear that you can bring a claim for race national origin religion harassment all together one form of harassment amplifies the effect of another and in fact if you have an individual most of these cases have been race and sex but for example if you have an individual who i black woman who is bringing a discrimination claim based on the fact that she is a black woman it is irrelevant that the employer might treat whites differently the saying you don't look at whites versus blacks and men vers women because a black woman has a unique experience everything is intertwined you can't separate people that way and you can't separate harassment that way if an employer has bias that biases infused in everything that employer within the three hundred day lookback of title seven what was raised was an equitable stoppel argument i don't agree that there's authority to impose some type of equitable stop statutory tolling with respect to title seven and this instance on the grounds that appellant argues that there isn't and what is a small company here an employee handbook the authority cited doesn't stand for that proposition but also pivot more broadly to the whether or not any activity related to it was in a hostile work environment activity harassment was alleged is in the record looking back three hundred days from march of two thousand and thirteen when the action is that when the charge with the c charges appellant ted had been on that f b i for for a bit they had a discussion about and it's all of this is in the record about his business dealings with individuals from iraq who ripped him off about computers and then there was testimony that he closely mr schank closely monitored her behavior as her boss there after that's when that occurred the charge the filing  fountain blue which stands for that proposition as well that you have to pledge specific facts of the case on the facts of this case and you look at them miscast says you talk about and will come on welcome and serve severe and pervasive are two of the problems for hostile work environment and she testified that she brought up these conversations all the way through the last one which occurred by her own admission in two thousand and eleven the end of two thousand and eleven that's when the last allegedly offensive conversation occurred about islam about middle eastern culture a current events or any of the topics that are alleged to be offensive both in the complaint and also and and her deposition in the record this is excessive surveillance the act that occurs within the three hundred period doesn't have to be agreed just doesn't have to be terrible it just have to be a continuation of a respite so that you know if this evidence that it continued in the record hast two thousand but that's not but to address the application and judge judge lee was laser was laser focused in his opinion and it's a very good opinion and he addressed the record evidence that that case involved was a race case african american race case and something along a quote within the lines of i'll get his or her quote black and looking at mr johnson actually it's in the his record that yeah it was a different management style that he had it was more hands on but there's a zero of nexus in the record or otherwise between that and a small company and statements that were made back in two thousand and eight and through two thousand that was just overbearing and that it was dealt with a lack of trust you agree that there's no evidence that that continues but i disagree but i don't think that there's record evidence that that continue in fact but by you've been testified to that she didn't she say that this overbearing scrutiny continued up until the time she went on maternity leave yes no no no no it up until the time that she went on maternity leave yeah actually i don't know continue to question in terms of that a lack of trust staying on top of her what are you doing didn't she say that i thought justified in the record and i can see that around the time when she became pregnant before she went to turn on the leave she just kind of you know there was they didn't really interact it became cold and they didn't they didn't talk much i thought that was the testimony in terms of that specific point but that that's all i can answer to address that but i  part of the problem is that that argument wasn't presented to the district court respect to the intimidation but what was presented were claims that she that the acts that allowed the statute to continue to run were her march twenty third team terminations and her removal of her assignments in november of two thousand and twelve those were the acts that this report focused on in deciding whether or not the statute had been told and the courts that no because those were discrete act unrelated to the focus of her client isn't that what the district now that's exactly right your honor and you need addressed and the opinion addressed what just that the record evidence that was senate i'm not aware of which which testify post may not of this intrusive overbearing scrutiny of her work they did not in her deposition did or didn't you know the record your counsel record is not i do i do know that through three the stand that i have to defer later on or so you say that no there was no testimony that is overbearing scrutiny of her work occurred after the may not now would that would be the cut off right or ethnic religious animus direct now if not circumstance direct do you agree with that direct direct evidence of animist based on religion and ethnicity is it or is it not direct i don't think we're in this topic where there's a fluid dialogue between it and much conversation that she was trying to bring these topics up and they were having a back and forth topic of it i don't think it's i don't think it's evidence of direct i do think if you don't what racial absolutely is it ignorant yet i mean repeating it and you go to that the one specific i guess that the one that you didn't you say that he had a bad experience with some people in the middle east that he was angry because he had been screwed by people in the middle east that you say he he that that was the two thousand a conversation about people from iraq that that about that they felt he had so it was brought up in the sense that he was angry at that not any of the record that what i'm relying upon the the record facts but they're not disputed i'm relying all solely on mostly either undisputed facts in the record or miscast this is deposition testimony and saying that counsel mis represent the rector not at consistently says i want to show off if i wanted to educate him and also i wanted to let everybody in the workplace know and educate them about morocco and in so she showed pictures of her cousin said his friend his friend said that about about the people in dubai yes absolutely and he repeated that's evidence that i think it's evidence of impropriety  that can you tell us why they are they still and then all of a sudden you start scrutinized and person does a person have to remind you every day that you're scrutinizing because you think that they're a nigger and say it all the time that's the argument as once you extend the animists based on ethnicity then you start scrutinizing based on your alleged mistrust they're crooks they out to screw you you don't have to every day say i'm doing this by the way because i've concluded because of who you are and who who you believe about what name you call guy is why you're like this and that's why i have to do this do you have to say that every day that that's what the continuation is is it not but a hostile work environment  distrust based on not what you do but who you are and that's what discrimination is about who you are without any reference to your character content or anything just because who you how you believe what you believe in who you are the then and look at it it's an important concept to text and you're talking about two thousand a conversation and you're talking about an individual points if he testified that these conversations happened and they're all laid out factually and then they go through and she testified did you ever say to him hey i'm uncomfortable i don't want to talk about islam or any of these things and she said no she testified that she wanted to educate them as to islam and christianity and so that debate occurred and and then also just  to show everybody that there modern and she felt that way and i certainly i can see it and understand that but there was never any just even a verbal hate up and so you juxtapose that with with fountain blue and all these other cases that stand for the proposition like yet one of the problems or the problems you know severe and pervasive and unwelcome just even a verbal hey i feel uncomfortable about that but i want to speed it on the record that she she said look i didn't tell him that cocktail waitress and repeated slurs that were awful spitting in the face and saliva in the face and this yelling and also combined with you know i can get you and saying this the second day as well when the individual reported it immediately and immediately opposed it and the bad actor in that case interrupted the meeting with the h r said i'm going to get you in repeated it and so it is that the facts here given that she felt she wanted to educate and she and she went back and forth and there is that ignorant statement and certainly it's it it but i think the facts are distinguishable completely from the depositions that these discussions of the need for the position just as they always occur were caring for years and also in november of two thousand and twelve prior to the meeting in the time  a little bit suspicious you have this conversation between her and her harasser where he finally comes clean and and in tears complains about what happened or an hour or half later you have this e mail from a supervisor looking around to see if they can on another if if the court applies well or if you factor end it if the record evidence that these conversations were occurring and then apply set foster i believe it's the interpretation nassar that says it's a but for standard for retaliation but i don't think that a jury could do that but another point here is there is this is this i mean this is a small company i mean they don't have to be tons of emails referencing the elimination of a position or something like that and also just to address even though it's on the record i mean all sorts of documents and rolls are producing all sorts of other documents so i just wanted to says the surveillance continued until october twenty twelfth all right so the evidence is in the record but that you make that point before the district i did not make that point at that time no into why should we consider it appealed and the court has to look at the entire record with fresh eyes and so i believe that at least gives the court an old showing to you to well up in over doesn't mean you get a pass if you earlier and found that those weren't sufficiently related to the harassing conduct and that you disagree with that i mean that that's preserved so you disagree with that i'm sort of what is the question in the district court and considered your contention that this statute of limitations had been preserved by looking at two discrete acts that occurred within the statute of limitations with terminations and one other you disagree that he was wrong to say that those fell outside of that the this i believe so yes i believe so on on on accounts that you know again just just quickly as an aside the district court also believe that none of the comments were racial or of animists in nature so i don't think the court developed that link between her prior racist comments stretching back about two or three years which the court simply dismissed as inquiries about morocco and islam and then catching the link that here we have an individual in december twenty twelve three months before she was terminated using those prior comments as a bas what we feel essentially was the trigger that resulted in a terminations so i think when you were to win one if the jury were to look at the collective evidence which is what they must i think we can sure that l now i brought that argument not to to to to the district court arguing that the december sixth inquiry to another employer and then the terminations followed eighty five days later on march first that was all part of a sing one three and in st francis the supreme court said that race is not defined by modern scientific theory instead the congressional intent was to protect people from discrimination based on ethnic characteristics now what are the ethnic characteristics of somebody from the region of iraq they have a common language they speak arabic they have a common culture they have a common religion muslim my client is from morocco according to factbook ninety nine percent of the population from morocco identified as arabic ninety nine percent of the population and morocco also identify as muslims now if we were to include now if those are the ethnic characteristics of my clients reese culture similar culture similar language similar religion then i believe when he was making those comments making those comments groups and another case i like to bring point out is there was actually a very similar case this was soon i was new england telephone and telephone company from the first circuit three f t for seven one here the plaintive was a jewish citizen now nation of israel and the employer there made a discriminatory hiring decision hiring somebody that was not jewish and also me discriminatory remarks towards the nation of israel when in discussing his evaluation i think there was a look of disgust on the employee's face when he said oh i'm from israel the sinai court in quoting same francis again the supreme court case said that the jury could find that israel is one of those countries in which the populace is composed primarily of a particular race it's the same in here falls into his own category and that's when the supreme court said well you know we're going to look at the ethnic characteristics and in the court said that saw long as he was subjected to intentional discrimination based on the fact that he was