in particular with talking about the incident that took place near the end the promise employment on february two thousand one hundred and twenty six scene in which plaintiff's coworker harassed her and threatened her during an outdoor training exercise since this begun previously against the plaintiff and it wasn't so far removed from the prior round of harassment that the jury could not consider as part of the totality of the circumstances that typically d hostile work environment claims under section one hundred and eighty one dollars and the new york city human rights lawyer just just to be clear the jury was allowed to hear about the incident but but there was a limiting in charge and limiting the plaintiff and it was in the same vein as the prior comments great rants harassing her you know she's a physical jeopardy it's the same person this court has held that you can have race neutral conduct said well the jury could've simply credited the transit authorities version of the facts and what evidence to what evidence did you have of department awareness of the racial motivation of the  racial comments in the room in the room i mean everybody who's in a room knows everything that said in the room well they're in a classroom instruction in jenkins was speaking out in the presence of the instructors i mean that the classrooms harassment telling the jury they can consider it in a valley the plaintiff's case then the jury is not up to being instructed to examine the case consistent with this court's standards of looking at the employment relationship as a whole the jury didn't hear the whole on the questions that you asked and my opposing counsel momentarily judge but let me just start out with the district court properly excluded ending a evidence of the february twenty and subsequent events as unrelated to the hostile work environment plans before it it ruled throughout the trial properly instructed the jury in a way that was clear and consistent this in limited ruling in his twenty nine page opinion in water denying to the walls will fifty nine motion the district court provide a thorough analysis of the summary judgment decision that supported the really be evidence a trial and on it and also give you instructions to the jury after finding that plaintiff's contention on that motion and that this was a worst case alicia racially called at trial including two of the fellow students in the classroom who will call by the planter and the instructors who were in the classroom season playing to his own testimony including her exaggeration of the time period during which the alleged harassment occurred the unlimited ruling and the summary judgment by the district court by excluding evidence of the alter case and subsequent events the district court probably true granted plaintiff from even propagate resurrecting her quote goes on to say this as discussed further below coupled with the fact that the incident was arguably instigated by plame to have as a result of her turning the train on prematurely calls into question that and indeed as plaintive testified a trial lawyer had not been five months of harassing and allegedly discriminatory comments made to her in the classroom with everyone else in the classroom d was angry ms jenkins was upset and he came in and complained about that q ms watkins and ms watkins complained back to her nothing about racial remarks indeed to testify that she related any of that exchange back to any alleged discriminatory conduct after the fact when she spoke to  different training locations she complained she said she testified at on there were racial slurs again there was nothing  conduct at the a prayer at the february twenty one incident was at race based while the while there is nothing that while the conduct of the of the authority of the conduct of the employer assume that if jenkins has done all the things that she's alleged to have done previously she's still harboring that same race based analysis when she screams even if she had some justification on february twenty one but sure the evidence in favor of the party that won to some extent but we also consider how the evidence that the jury heard might have changed the jury view the case we don't know what the jury thought about whether management and coworkers or classmates evidence in the record to support of or a liability we can just assume that the jury rejected that as a matter of fact not on the record the issue of the gap between acts of racial hostility there was a three to four month gap between the are seventy three where there was a two year gap between the incidents of racial harassment and bill relevant to to make out a hostile work environment claim it's much longer than what happens here that the city is