employment relationship but it took almost a year for him to resign have those occurred that doesn't look like he was course he was if your honor there are many events over the course of that year of course there is the near physical attack that is described in great detail about prior to that time there had been incidents of workplace violence that he had witnessed from these individuals he made some reports up and he knew that those would lead to recriminations in his evaluations and performance evaluations he waited many months into august of the next year to receive the full report of the investigating authorities and it was only after that after  months lapse after that time that he finally submitted in involuntary resignation and he very clearly on the resignation form said i'm resigning this workplace is no longer safe for me to do to the harassment and the physical and emotional between his his separation papers that was october thirty first so by all accounts it was probably november december and then ten days into january that english yeah let's say three months and during that time he was never the last  undergoing performance evaluations and the like he had been told by the h r department that that involuntary separation could be pulled at any time up until the day of his formal separation and so he was during that entire time pleading as you'll see in the record for a transfer away from these individuals that he had no intention of fully separating if he could at all of waited but as the events continued even during the stream of interval he found that there was no opportunity for him to to even go forward and so he did in voluntarily separate at that time and pursued for the recourse with the courts as we said there were several errors in the courts  in determining that it was not involuntary the first being that the board isolated all of these individual instances the complete record has many instances and many well documented event and the warrant isolated those and pick them off one by one to suggest that a reasonable person wouldn't a found that to egregious however the court is very clear that this must be taken for totality that a reasonable person experiencing all these opinions courts have to address things in syria in fashion that is that is how opinions are written very frequently and in this case there are no linking statements whatsoever such as given events x and  reasonable person might have thought z and such and such or given event as it's not reasonable that this occurred after there or not there is nothing we can up all these individual events that the court chose to piecemeal address entirely excluding from its analysis many of the other relevant background factors such as yours of high quality service this is part of the texture and the context in the background of the court has asked for in performing th tringle had fourteen years of high quality an incident free service it becomes very suspicious regan a reasonable person why there is suddenly a spiral over the course of the year led him to exit the agency it would have helped them understand what a reasonable person in that year interval really that pressure cooker would have been thinking a given the years of impeccable service there are other things that were entirely missed by  from these individuals as they would come down the hall all these things would have been sussed out and then evidence here or here and you could have had the nurse for example testify or you could have had these two supervisors testify to what happened in that room that day they deny that anything and so you're asking for it trial of the same question so right before then this from the hearing on whether or not the circumstances were such that sufficiently intolerable reasonable person would have or could have retired and in that case what is the benefit what is the recovery restoration to employment having retired your honor the request at this point of mr trinkle is much more modest here in fact i recognize the proper standard when he was writing his own prostate rispoli he said all i want to see opportunity to put this under oath and to have the demeanor and the credibility of all those involved assessed and oral hear him in every denture hearing on jurisdiction if after that hearing there is no no way to go forward because jurisdiction is indeed at that point determined to be  employment nonetheless he and voluntarily separated because he had no way of proceeding for reasonably with this group of individuals so he he does he did anticipate fully continuing on in his federal career  at this point he needed that jurisdictional hearing to bring for the evidence and demeanor and credibility determinations in a in a hearing i did note that the language in ron where there is a question is the voluntary  injury hearing is required and he is asking for precisely that moving on there are some questions if if you permit there are some questions with respect to the finding be too remote for example of this was you know then your physical attack occurred about twelve months or fourteen months before his separation and as a legal matter it is improper  snapshot to take one thing right before separation in view that is this without any that the court has it instructed very clearly that while remote things may eventually have less problem if value it is nonetheless an evidentiary hearing that helps determine that inter been the case it is often cited by the government indeed remote events were given less property value but that was in the context of this jurisdictional hearing that we're not necessarily looking for that but we are looking for the recognition that there were many things that transpired here and it has a compound ing in a dynamic effect just striking down one at a time event by event no change in position under these individuals also it was said it was too remote that the event back in two thousand and seven where the same individual had actually physically shot someone and that was witnessed by mr petitioner now and winning or determining whether or not pursued all those allegations are true a reasonable person would feel they had no choice but to resign in employment under those circumstances a reasonable person in the particular circumstances simply would not feel like they had no choice but to resign and as you noted judge reno there was a long period of time between the last documented event that he led which i think w claims as this was kind of pointed out it's a necessary function in describing the overall environment is to describe each element making up the environment otherwise it would be nothing more than just listing allegations and   where the record demonstrates is there was a near physical attack in november two thousand and thirteen and then nothing except possibly an investigation in the interim and by his own account he was possibly trying to avoid them for a year and then he wrote some it's a retirement application in october two thousand and fourteen but still does not retire at that time and still wait another three months before he finally retires semmens reading that this was an intolerable work environment it was at best maybe an unpleasant work environment but it was something he was clearly able to tolerate a little bit or enough to stay in the workplace because we haven't heard much about the minute where did that occur in this times well you haven't heard much about it because unclear as to when it happened it may have happened before that mere physical attack sometime in the fall of two thousand and thirteen before november but i would like to address that for a different reason which is that the petitioner waived his discrimination claims in order to remain in this court after the supreme court's decision in perry so to the extent that the negative character any of the events making up this intolerant environment or drive solution discrimination  giving or reasonably possible credibility to these allegations there's no way that a reasonable person would have retired and are you telling me are true at non privileged change and what they're what we state are look we're holding is that no reasonable person in these circumstances would feel compelled to resign it's a very high bar  very few individuals ever actually reach because it's an incredibly demeaning standard is this code of say that you have to feel as if you have no choice but to resign when clearly he fel jurisdictional hearing but what we're saying is that assuming his allegations are true a reasonable person still wouldn't feel compelled to resign a jurisdictional hearing would be held if you made allegations that if you could prove them true that they jurisdiction but i'd like to go back to what i was reading with judge laurie earlier because he waived discrimination to remain before this court anything such as his medical condition that was that he le assume that since he did request transfer numerous times that he could be reinstated and considered for a transfer at that point but certainly that's well down the road if what we're asking for here that threshold jurisdictional analysis  hearing the government continues to hang everything on that one date november thirteenth two thousand and thirteen when the near physical attack occurred after that time in april  mr trinkle was dealing with the security officers to discuss this he was dealing with this higher ups in april there are e mails to all these effects certainly by august of two thousand and fourteen he received the investigation that said there were not going to act on this and that was the investigation results in twenty four teams and only two months later october thirty first firmly submitted his resignation still during that time he was holding out hope beyond hope for a transfer so those further events still continue to play in in december and then in january twenty fifth he eventually separated so that year was replete with further incidents and further thinking but ultimately realizing he describes this as the dam bursting when he realized he was going to get no support or help from reporting up that it was a continuous and underdressed pattern of behavior and in bates the case that we cite that was enough also so that para lots of time where he sees that he's not getting any recourse or relief and he finally recognizes that these memos are coming out where they're not going to help him that's what drove him to his ultimate in involuntary separation just laugh slate just put this back into perspective supports that with dozens and dozens of pages of contemporaneously e mails and documents showing that this was going on these allegations are not conclusory by any definition the second part of a non  and there is nothing impossible here about allegations of were place harassment call it schoolyard bullying call it what you may it's not impossible to see that the supervisors were systematically persecuting