what title seven provides for the executive and for the private industry and private private use ca was a statute that was the result of the contract with america in analyzing that statute the board of directors which is the head of the agency in analyzing title seven and the different amount and the different jurisdiction circuit jurisdictions and how they dealt with title seven felt that they had to broaden the statute and broaden their use of what discrimination was under the statutory language of the statute to see a thirteen eleven a one and under the statutory language of retaliation under thirteen seventeen a and where it's all personnel actions and under discrimination all personnel lashins if motivated by race carlow sex national origin religion in thirteen seventeen it's all retaliatory actions if motivated by intimidation if motivated by reprisal of wise discrimination now in doing that they created thirteen go to there is only one uniform retaliatory statute now in doing that they said in effect they said we have to because these other statutes have created of a case law and on the law this is the reasoning we have to provide retaliation that covers these other statutes meaning that if you were to take the n l r b which if you if you equate the n l r b case law with the federal labor relations act which is very very similar in terms of how they deal with the same actions i list the whole lot of and l r b cases in my opening brief though of those cases would not be termed retaliation under title seven but they would be termed retaliation under the cia under thirteen seventeen a so the statute based on their reasoning based on intimidation and the statutory language of the test broaden the title seven definition as used in brown versus brody as decided by this court and some of the later cases as decided by this court now i would say brown versus brody has been necessarily rejected for retaliation under thirteen seventeen a which is created by the ten other statutes that are listed in thirteen no two of the code into u s code thirteen zero two which may provide a lesser retaliate issue according to their respective case law than it does under the title seven respective case law so if you look at the all personnel decisions regardless  thirteen seventeen which could be intimidation which could be otherwise discrimination as used in seven and thirteen seventeen it is consistent with the context of the statute is consistent with the structure of the statute if you don't have to go statutory rules of construction which has been applied and i believe its utility regulatory group versus the e p a by justice scalia in that case and applied in sierra wanted in the same and even if there is no primacy i would also respectfully say to the court that a court has the and inherent power to necessarily interpret the law that they are required to enforce that because of what was done in burlington northern santa fe the two statutes are life however the two statutes on are not mentioned and the case law necessarily representing the britain tangible it wouldn't even have to rise to the level of a tangible material personal action it could be used to intimidate there are a lot of things that can be brought in terms of personal actions that can be used to intimidate if i might jump court and subsequent to those actions it was not a supervisory staff that wanted to review your work it was the attorney the response to the tourney of counsel within the city that wanted to review wor k now that doesn't mean whether or not anything resulted from that council's review of the work it's merely the idea that it was in to me because somebody all the sudden having nothing to do with with u all personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment in executive agencies she'll be made free from any discrimination based on race color religion sex or national origin that is exactly developed in title seven other board and and title seven are exactly the same if you look at britain of britain determined that title seven would be the framework which was decided for the board retaliation britain's president thought that the e p l standard was sufficient to include the broader language under the sea yet and i submit that it does  i'm not i'm not sure you might have had to look at the back again but then you think government counsel's request to get back on track was a not to make it clear that the district court was applying the burlington britain standard yes yes or because after locker room claim one hundred eighty days yes claimed why isn't that a continuing violation or locker room disparate treatment that would therefore continue therefore making a time interesting to think about one of the difficult issues in this context generally is always continuing violations while while you think that one is not well your honor let me turn around if this is aleisha right if it were contingent violation on using the morgan standard one of the adverse actions would have had to occur within some one hundred eighty day period of  requests for counsel to the office of of compliance and there was no evidence of any adverse action concerning this one within a one hundred eighty day period of counseling the fifteen minutes of venue leave because she because she was late but none of the evidence shows that that ever occurred in the evidence were her time sheets and she was never dot any fifteen minutes within one hundred eighty day period of house is an attempt to lose generous view of her complaint but is merely being required to use a walk room shared with men she's the only female is itself action will be removed whether or not there is specific incident if you have to be beaten up in the locker room or not allowed to use or of the late isn't the mere fact of being or to work in if your honor please with respect to the marker room i don't think any of the conditions excuse me any of the conditions in the locker room were any necessarily different year it's the same argument which provided him with second class status until something happened on the baseball diamond with people he released with respect to the argument that she could come in earlier she could not necessarily  in earlier because there were fifteen people getting off the night shift who used the same locker room before the day shift so and they were in there all at the same time six thirty seven o'clock started the thing so she couldn't well before she filed any complaint jackie robinson didn't have a complaint procedures she did have a complaint procedure and she had time limits that she had to meet so when she knew coming in the door she was facing that she had time  incident that's about individual incidents that's different so you're saying she's best the time on the spur treatment cloying but is yes or a lot of what necessarily agree with that except she's that she's not necessarily past the time that what was