suit the district court on summary judgment also agreed that a prima facia case had been shown but it found that the county had articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons which we could not overcome that is i think the crux of this appeal for hostile work environment i it's i would admit candidly it's somewhat of a stretch because we don't have we have we have a number of incidents throughout all one into two and even up to the present still employed with accounting where he was treated differently principally by his s are there additional statements like that that in your view to it back to your burden and out of the pretext i know where you're going and it's you know it is rare a race based case that you actually have such a direct comment like that that it's kind of the exception rather than the rule we don't have that discovery did not show any other statements by mr condi or kevin costner that we're directly because you're asian descent we're doing this act would we look to to say that for my factual standpoint that they hadn't really met their pretext for on the part of the employer i would just have to come back then to how things played out factually with the hiring of mr hines someone who didn't have the qualifications someone who roger can be admitted when he did the interview process he didn't even know what article seventeen was about he admitted that he did know that every applicant in clark county in las vegas there were other people that scored higher ground that's true that's true and i believe there and there's no suggestion of that and i guess i'm having trouble with where does the race or national origin find its way back into the case of was of course that's only one piece of evidence that could come out at trial if it were good to go to trial but i would have to look at at the the course of events at and this well is how he was being treated by mr mccosker who did make a statement not race based but  someone could imply that if you're not the kind of person we're looking for made him earlier in two thousand and one and mr mccosker indeed was on the interview panel he was one of the three that perhaps that was one of the factors that will come into play when you consider is there enough evidence here under goodwin to go to trial and had we present sufficient i don't think we have that direct evidence you know that if i had the state from condi directly i get i got him good and then he maybe we're not even here if i had that direct and i don't  is how he was treated through the whole interview process he did win his arbitration he challenge that with the counting that's in the briefs and and went forward from there and have a few minutes left but i want to touch on a couple things are a quick the emotional distress claim the state will claim submitted i just wanted to know that this is a case where we had evidence that was submitted that mr santos did suffer from physical manifestations sentiments he did seek psychological treatment and care for anxiety and depression disorders that he had from two doctors policies they have great policies in place if the counting follows policies plaintiff's lawyers like me wouldn't be here we would be filing these cases they've got great policies that if followed are meaningful but here we have a situation where if the government employer doesn't follow its own policies i would submit to you that that is extremely outrageous especially from a government employee and unless the private sector crazy things happen but from a government employer you almost have to demand demand that they will follow the letter of the law including title seven and everything that that means so if you do find something on the state well claims we would submit that there's sufficient evidence for the emotional stress and to go forward the negligent supervision claim i don't believe i dressed in my  and i believe it was a misread by the district court below i the negligent supervision quite wasn't filed to try and get punitive damages which are even permissible negative supervision talks about the fact that you have managers like condi and kevin mccosker who are supervisory and managerial level employees of the county who apparently are not following the county's own policies against discrimination in the workplace and forgot the rules in citing case as an argument but there's a fed sub case that canada versus boy groups from th conduct did he endure i laid out in the briefing a statement of fact the different things that occurred with mr koster and how that's the same argument that was making a hostile work environment claim but i'm talking about how he was treated differently on favorable sign that's not given certain assignments treated differently than other employees i believe that would constitute about the reading i've had from your softened ray in a number of my circuit cases it seems as though in brooks versus a material that the my circuit does give a broad interpretation of what is an adverse employment doesn't have to building the individual who received this promotion was someone who had spent years working on high rise hotels and determination was made that he as he had the most experience in that category and the third highest scores in the actual formal interview that he was the person that we don't have here we don't have admissible evidence that kind of the word minister would be more to the case for the person made the comment about to change even though it was not an extensive comment people who could work without supervision that was the only explanation that was given and there is no other admissible evidence to show to the contrary or anything to show that there was any kind of race based analyst directed at any one who was of any other race  badly that's not a standard that has to be both subjective and objective and there was no objective evidence that he was treated in a hostile fashion he was treated differently then white people in his department of white people were treated better than he a procedure that it was used to discriminate against people is in fact giving people a chance to get a job with the county and then get any kind of certificate or requirements they might have to have later so this is not the kind of thing that rises to the level of extremely outrageous  authority toward the back they benefits associated with position he did not address the whole any issues of discrimination things of that time so now there was some debate in the district court about that and i just want to make sure for this record that you know we're speaking here damages beyond the economic component the only