me please the court is a work environment hostile when an employee endures years of unwanted touching lewd remarks and intimidation if title seven is to have any force the answer should be in  severe pervasive element of a hostile work environment severe because it was deliberately ask you something about the ford stamping plant yes in chicago so so this is a lot of  along with hair pulling interspersed with comments about her body or underwear and such because ford had any rules when they hire someone do they did they say something in life you know you mustn't touch you must touch women here i believe in rebecca taylor's deposition she she talked about the union contract and i believe when an employee an hourly employee signs contract that the rest of it is also pervasive because there are over twenty perpetrators the rest one lasted years and despite hoaxers complaints the rest would never stop for these reasons the same reasons the environment was both objective belief and subjectively hostile male employees of fortune called the stamping plant reduce talks are to an object a source of amusement and sexual gratification and the district court never definitively answer whether the harassment was severe pervasive but at the opinions outset and setting the tone for the rest of the decision the court states quote the accused persons harassed her or retaliated against her only for a limited period of time for in some cases only in one isolated instance now she reported in the late ninety's he reported to the labor relations department and she also report this carl horton supervisor and between one and all three in these various incidents that occurred before twenty levon she didn't make any reports correct either that there's a there's a timeframe circumstances entire context and courts pointedly refrain from parsing or isolating out each incident of harassment so this divergence with well settled was one of many plaiting summary judgment opinion moving to the employer liability element the question before the court is whether for preventive harm future harm when the harassment and intimidation continue for years to ask is the answer for did not exercise reasonable care and stop the harassment for the simple reason that the harassment never stopped title seven looks at whether future harm is provided and if there's ever a case where future harm was not prevented this exact but the debate as to who stopped and who continued is secondary the real test is not whether eugene white for example specifically stop harassing it for council the hoekstra generally speaking was harassed again otherwise forgets to hit the reset button after each new employee harasse basically the investigation was resolved he was brought back and given the six days with pay so in essence as we pointed out of a paid vacation but dance your question known as fire known was was ever fully disappoint it was only good morning your honour's curator granfer ford motor company may please the court judge posner to answer the question that you asked an initially of counsel yes for does he have a robust anti harassment policy which is in the record in a trial was a robust anti harassment policy which was was very robust doesn't seem to work well i disagree with the court in making that observation is your primary question how many so there are about two thousand career i think that's roughly correct john i'm not sure that the number of you women i don't know the answer that and i can certainly find that out and supply that to the court if the court five euros i did the chicago stamping plant personally i have not your honor from the pictures looks pretty pretty rough well i mean i don't mean rough in the sense not a good good plan or anything but a lot of very heavy machinery is being moved around i think that's i think that's correct your honor it's our position in around are that the court should affirm the district court's ruling on count one because it's a me under of law the record doesn't disclose a payout turn of harassment i does do they tell people who when they hire them they tell them the information they had in forests anti harassment policy and they had information is provided to all workers upon you tell me what it says all right your honor it defines harassment as conduct of a harassing nature whether in the workplace or off site which has the effect of interfering with someone's work performance and sexual harassment specifically is defined as abusive offensive or  penalties for harassment or retaliation if the investigation finds an employee has engaged in conduct that violates this policy penalties will depend on the nature of the fence any and all breaches of the policy are considered serious appropriate discipline will be imposed even for a first offense ranging from a verbal warning up to including discharge and that's in the record in these various incidents that happened here they didn't  you're just like you're just a pain you just complaining you're just making these things up why would the minute that you have to be counseled if there was nothing your honor nobody told her that there was nothing to it or that she was just a painter that she was making things up eye and i think that the deposition of rebecca taylor's is pretty explicit on that but it but like for example mark boal counsel discipline several of them who were counseling  but the question that that that the this court's precedent presents is not whether there is an appropriate penalty for what are allegations that are made by one employee against another i mean the employer has to investigate these claims the employer here and there's no there's no no question of fact i believe that the employer in this case investigated the claims that were brought to his attention but of course in c never for since no one has ever fired just given counseling there's no there's no there isn't there is only the weakest of incentives for the men to behave themselves your honor i don't think it's correct to say that no one has ever fired that's not a fact that's established by the record in this instance the allegations that were brought forth by the employee didn't result in anyone being fired but the deal law requires floor very strange i mean i didn't understand how they tolerate this now for tolerate scores for doesn't tolerate it your i wouldn't fire these people for it can't fire an employee without conducting an appropriate investigation yes but the appropriate these investigation showed that they had done these these specific acts i don't think that's correct your honor that's not what the no your honor what right so if they find that some worker you know violated company policy and labor and their collective bargain so on by you know this sexual touching what's the sanction in this case there was no such finding your honor and there wasn't anything she asked you whether they thought she was lying about this or whether the at least in some of these instances they agreed this work you what the reasonable investigation of four determined and ford doesn't just share one side of the story ford also speaks to the person who's being accused of harassment and any witnesses that they can find and they conduct an investigation  and shoulder one time or hands were touched and this is over a period of many years and of course none of our conversation is it is or none of our discussion here is taking into account the statutory bar and the very long gap in reporting which was not two thousand and seven two thousand and eleven but two thousand and three to two thousand and eleven but the there was there was no touching that involved any intimate area of the plane at other than one time the plaintiff reported that she was tapped on the rear there was twice when she she can take can took the position that somebody had given her a hard hug and touched the side of her breast and giving her a hug this is not the contact this is what what what happened with those hugging complaints of hers the hugging one of the hugging complaints involved wills who we spoke of earlier there was an investigation a number of people were interviewed including the person who was said that he had hugged her and the witnesses did not bear out her accusations so they have person was suspended during the course of the investigation and then once it was the are you saying that the company never found that there had been of offensive touching her that's correct your honor and what's what's what the court has looked at and what i said why shouldn't a jury decide the company because as a matter of law on this record you're out there look what you're saying is the company can always believe the mail worker and therefore there's no there's no rumor that's not correct that's not what i'm saying your honor yes you are no i'm not well if the company believes that the few wasn't molested that's the end of the queues for you know that's not the end are hosed we think that the company doesn't really care about the figures it has the higher symbol image but doesn't really why the women in the stamping plant and so the so you're saying there's really no honor looking at i mean when the the looking at what was done by for was objective lee reasonable under the circumstances it can it conducts this investigation it doesn't just hear a denial and then say we're closing our books were done with it but it may be guy may be incorrect look it's not a it's not a court why should it's why should it's informal determination by loose because the but that's what the law says the law says did ford act reasonably and i think one of the maybe the strongest low base is what reason the that that the employer must act reasonable i don't think it's like there's any evidence or reason here's the evidence that it's acting reasonably is that in each instance when the plaintiff reported her claim for conduct an investigation counseled the person or took whatever and rejected like that no that's not rejecting the claim there so that's rejecting the clime clearly they're not giving her any relief and and here's the relief your honor there was no further harassment of her by these people by the same person by the same person that's right your honor these are unconnected incidents so i guess here is my question so you don't think court was put alert that there was something going on i understand she was late some of these claims but we're at summary judgment now and i guess my question is wouldn't they be alert when you have an employee every year once or twice a year or have complaints about the men who are treating her the least that would be some indication that something is going on in that department well that that certainly you know there would all be taken account and when there's an investigation but i you know i think that  i'm not suggesting she would necessarily prevail if you want to travel on this but we're at summary judgment and so the question is in the court could take into account all the things that were time bar plus all the more current things and the background of to the extent that the court is considering all of the pre two thousand and four incidents i don't believe that that's what's called for under this court's precedent in that it can be considered for background purposes not but not for purposes of  a hassle work environment know that you have to look at the more current incidence which we're looking at those as well but the but the gap in time under the salon caisson lucas and tenor and all of those post morgan cases decisions of this court said that the question of whether certain acts that are too far back in time and in this case we're talking a gap of from the end of two thousand and three all the way to at the earliest two thousand and seven that's not a continuing pattern that is not a continuing pattern and they shouldn't be taken into account but so even if for the sake of argument the court looks at all of it it's not it's not simply a matter of can you find an instance where somebody has been has has made a comment that's offensive or has made a passing touch of the shoulder if that's the had talked for it to be actionable has  much worse than that and this and the fact that this is spread out over a number of years i don't think it's fair to characterize fourth position on this as saying that we're not taking into account all the circumstances we certainly are taking into account all of the circumstances under this court precedent which includes the fact that the these acts are unconnected this over a long period of time is different people acting and definitely i think that the fact that the contacted ended on ratters thank you hers is a chord knows the mere existence of the harassment policy is not a cure all and the district court's reasoning that the that ford has a rascal policy that simply defies case law stop and case law is clear that if the policy in the and what an employer is doing to implement their policy is not effective then the purpose of the policies is super council states that it acted reasonably but is your honor's point out if if this problem is recurring month after month year after year it's hard to say with a straight face that that ford acted reasonably and that the purpose again of title seven is to make an environment a work environment that is not hostile and obviously that that is not the case here the series choosing the e e o c found a class wide determination of both  harassment and retaliation it put simply this this is an environment rife with hostility and harassment towards female workers that there are no further questions would ask that the court reverse and remand for a jury