violations doctrine applies in this case even if this court ignores all the evidence that predates august seventh two thousand and twelve and even if this court ignores all the evidence from  employment of my my client there still is sufficient evidence to justify reversing for a trial specifically for the hostile work environment claim we've got weekly meetings  of firm august through january when matthew waggoner left paychecks and all of their my client attended most of those meetings so they were about an hour long and during these meetings he just treated her with contempt and embarrassed her in front of her coworkers or professional meetings this is happened consistently on a routinely and and  violation january i believe this is when he leaves but yes i'm i'm only counting august september october november december five months they were mandatory weekly meetings so i'm estimating about twenty meetings assuming she attended about most of the eighteen hours of this time that judge us what evidence her declaration details what how he acted only to females not to the males he said that he would she said that he would roll you i'm sorry what or value for them seven thirty three seventy eight and in addition to his conduct during these meetings which was in contrast the way he treated her was different than the way he treated males she said that he he let them participate in a meaningful and professional manner that's at page seven fifty three of the excerpts of record and outside of these meetings they had regular interactions he routinely lets her work routinely winked at her when she would try to bring up a serious concern so it wasn't just a friendly or even antagonistic week it was it was constantly that she needed to move on retire give it up because she's a fifty four year old woman she told her that she was not company and and spoke to her and her words like she was a second class citizen that's paid seven fifty five and and was only directed at women and i wrote down it's some in fifty four some fifty five and also five are nine forty two and nine forty five he also  i think that the main thing was the treatment though the disparate treatment during meetings but the two things that you mentioned were that the treatment was rolling his eyes and winking the other thing that you mentioned is in paragraph sixteen on page seven fifty been she had received a number of letters from him detailing why he was unsatisfied with her her performance so what evidence is there that paragraph sixteen would have been based on sex well there's no evidence that he treated any of the males like that even when they underperform she was not the only person who recently underperformed and and she testified that he always cheated the men with respect and was she privy to any conversations that he had with any of the men who were under performing outside of meetings i do the records unclear during meetings yes and they all shared the information before meetings and during meetings about each other's sales performance and so now in paragraph sixteen this doesn't that this went on in the meetings and in front of other people you know she said these might have been private conversations and actually if so then how do we how do we get to the evidence of how he treated men who were underperforming in private conversations i don't think that her and those statements to her have to be read in context with the other behavior that he treated her in these meetings and the way that he treated her and singled her and the other females out  he treated this way because she is a woman or he treated other women the same way the only thing i see in paragraph fourteen has to do with the winking well i mean it may be enough i'm just trying to figure out what i'm missing anything i i think there's  meetings and she does how he would interact with her male colleagues in the collegial manner and mostly avoid making eye contact with her he would also discuss and that's where i was talking about how he talks down to her and  from running short on time there but this conduct did begin predating august this happened long before her performance issues it happened pretty much immediately after she was transferred into his district and although even if that evidence is not directly actionable it certainly is still reliable to show in a continuous pattern of intent and the way he treated her so it did not just begin his treatment of her did not begin in august escalated actually continuously complained but those that's a separate issue the second was back when he just hated her goods whether she was a female  this and he would give males the handouts he would basically give them territory that were closer to their houses he would help  was anything that she did to warrant that there was no there was no interaction that seems to have started any of this it started the moment she transferred into his district and he also he but she had received a number of a number of letters indicating that he didn't think that she he she had met her goals if you have evidence that the that the favorable territory was given to two males who were under performing yes well i did not specifically i don't have the specific evidence of which males got which territories but but she did that she was told to chew that her numbers were underperforming but that was largely due to the fact that he would tell iris patrick to move unassigned leads and credits and give these handouts the males who were underperforming and take them away from the women it wasn't just my clan it was also the other to go back and and fill out the record or you asking us to allow this to a trial because the record is now complete and there are still conflicts of interest in facts oh no i am absolutely asking for an opportunity to try this case appears to at least in the argument today have conceded the continuing violation piece i do want to point out and and reiterate that the only evidence that's been put forth before this court that any of the mistreatment that is fun a stock suffered was because of her gender is in the paragraph about the winking the winking is the only is the only conduct which is finest identifies as being directed at females as opposed to males so that the condescension the rolling of the eyes and speaking down to her that's that's not gender based and if there's no evidence of it well there's also  and so i think that that reference that you make to the paragraph nineteen of the working declaration falls within the court's order sustaining our objection but even so well you know he says if that's your personal opinion put forth evidence to withstand summary judgment it's not a place holder to get a trial and hope that more evidence comes out so by by describing it as a message that's a label that's a conclusion subordinate resonation he gave a close consideration whenever the women raise an issue he would just dismiss it you think that would not be enough to withstand an objection or to get to trial to get to support of girl and you can be mean to everybody you can be nasty to everybody but you can't be nasty to the women and out of the net that you can't there's no civility code but there is an equality code and when you you know this is just that he is treating the men differently from the women doesn't say he has to be nice to everybody it doesn't say he has to be he can't can't be mean to everybody but by saying that just because he is friendly or to the man i don't think that you can draw an adverse inference that means that it's that it's gender based it could be that they were sort of nice nice guys who got along and there's no requirement that they that he as long as it's not gender based i while i've been the joy just think that's different i mean there's a reason he gets along with them is because i'm guy raz and he just doesn't feel comfortable having that sort of same easy kind of come interaction about them winking yes and you know he winks of the women he doesn't wink at the men well i don't know why i can enjoy look at that and say look if you put that together with all the other stuff we think the in ways she didn't like and i'm proud to get treated in ways you don't like all the time because you know that's what bosses do and sometimes i have to do and sometimes they don't have to do but they do it anyway because entitled to do it but when lasers you know when there is evidence that he needs women differently that he feels more at ease with men that he has his facial for expressions and winking  the women the maybe a jerk would say well all these things that are nasty that she doesn't like maybe they weren't because of her performance maybe they were because of his attitude towards women was not a trick question i i think the district was right to just simply is not enough evidence here you know the court i think the district court i think was willing to assume that it was gender based but then it got to the question district were below but then they got to the question of whether it was pervasive  and the court said that contrary to the statements made by the opponents counsel we the court this report said that we can't say that there is not evidence to establish frequency i think the discourse absolutely right there i mean if we take just the five month period of time from august seventh two thousand and twelve to the end of december or even early january when mr wagner left paychecks you know there's evidence  you know i think that's i think the district court's conclusion that it was not pervasive i think is fully supported by the record in and it was a decision that was based not on ms final stock specific performance but on the sustainability of that position as a whole and you males fell victim to the same decision right yes declaration she says that is to me exhibit hostility towards or during their meeting the district courts sustained our objection to that evidence on the grounds that the declaration contradicted prior sworn testimony contradicted ms finest docs deposition testimony in which she was asked to recall everything she could about the conversation she had with ms to me and she said she had a bit with regard to whether the conduct was pervasive the standard the legal standard under the law a case that we said in the brief it's more than occasional isolated sporadic or trivial it must be a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated routine or a generalized nature so this weekly meeting his routinely winking that's her words the constant derision telling her to move on it's utter this does meet she was at these these weekly meetings so she witnessed firsthand fun shots conduct wenger's conduct of fine shock and the other women and i wanted to in addition to agreeing with th previously pointed out it paragraph ten she said i watched in observe my male colleagues being treated with respect and able to participate with meeting in a meaningful fashion so this is an instance of her being treated differently than her male and although a jury might disagree and find an is innocent explanation if the point is just cannot be decided as a matter of law on this record it needs to be  attend these meetings that ties in in my opinion to her testimony at seven fifty five and so not as i have declaration where she talks about him constantly telling her to move on retire give it up etc paragraph sixteen