only appealing the district court granted summary judgment on her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim district court made her task on appeal clear one test of the basis of the duty that you are asserting that duty is based in that public policy of with the retaliation by a cat and more which ultimately ended in the nonrenewable of our contract that was just the end point this whole process is what caused the emotional distress and the government had a duty to prevent sexual harassment that they knew was occurring and they knew that because there were complaints there was an administrative complaint and a district court complain a lot about the sexual harassment that poaches was committing and they didn't do anything to prevent his acts and they didn't do anything to prevent the acts of the cat and more  retaliatory not when your contract in addition you found out also alleges that they did several things like ordering infections over some contractors when it was not ever required before taking parking spaces away making her remove i don't have any specific examples for you where there is an intentional tort and the government doesn't have a duty to prevent that but i don't see that that is a problem if there are intentional acts think committed against employee and employer has a duty to prevent that th because ms armstrong claim is based on the government's torture of conduct arising from sexual harassment not a protected policy decision i'm going to let the ha and article one section eight of the california constitution the government have a duty to prevent and stop the sexual harassment continuing a pattern of sexual harassment and discrimination against the sounds on for heard ministre the complaints alleging harassment several cases support this contention i think from the first circuit so that when government employees have an ulterior motive for than bringing a claim under the washington civil rights statute for sexual harassment or discrimination in california law change after a period of time are you referring to the amendment to the f e c saying yes yes which the agency gets to investigate the coin she comes to court prematurely and then there isn't a denial of that plane issued by the agency and she would have had to refile her claim within six months of the denial in order to protect her rights with regard to the sexual harassment going so because she didn't do that that case the chain usually found prematurely was ultimately the fitness without prejudice she couldn't refile that case so the sexual harassment claim which seems to be the don't have that typical retaliation elk which could cheat in in bringing that kind of case before the board could she have argued that the  claim were they tended to they were tempting to argue whistleblower protection in that venue and they said you know when i can import all these rights from with all of the tension and because you're a contractor you're not an employee however we will look and see whether or not th impression from looking at the file and looking in detail at the record that there is no retaliation in this record other than the non renewal and i've heard mention this morning of investigations chairs and tables being taken away in a series of retaliatory acts by the cat more it just doesn't show it was a movement regionally to move to brand name agencies and it was the kind of healthy decision that states on economic and administrative considerations that the discretionary function exception is designed to protect so well there's no evidence of harassment that she faced in the place in which she was employed are continued really up into the time it was she filed for her second language you're dealing with technical requirements where like you have to give the navy six months notice and let them take that to the end of the six month time and then get a decision and then you can file but that didn't happen there were two complaints that mr complaints the first one back in nineteen