area still worth discussing just for a moment though if i may because that error is what led the court down the path that led to its incorrect decision with respect to retaliation claims by they retire and what's what are the circumstances that cause a rehire and then to my say guess about after about two months after the complaint is made they're fired on the grounds that it's a lack of work since january construction individuals whose job was or mistreated a chart of personnel whose job was to review psychological evaluations for applicants and in reading the valuations the supervisor read a comment that admitted that she wasn't offended by the content the plaintiff admitted this is in the court's opinion that she was admitted that she was not offended at all by the conduct that she's used to this is something she read it's something that you write it's part of her job to read  psychological profiles of valuations of the applicants here in contrast i was offended as it should be the use of the word nigger is as an offensive as it can be to anybody in a particular outcome it's african american hears saying no there's no way they can possibly win despite the fact that i'm supposed to accept what they say is true there's a whole lot of material here that indicates that there may have been harassment may have been discrimination and they may have been bitterly asian and in your world what does it take to be severe that well there needs to be conduct that occur single offensive remark a single offensive into the network is not sufficient and really i think that the problem here with the plaintiffs the parents theory is that they're asking the court to create a new standard to find and use a word like the n word it's so offensive to african americans that if you use it just once that's of your previous of and again that's not what the supreme court has held it's not what the supreme court has established as the appropriate standard there's no basis in title seven or in section one hundred eighty one to distinguish rosabelle you can't go supplying the reasons for the other side when they don't necessarily even tell you that those are the reasons no can do i believe in twamley the court held that if there are two explanations or several explanation not but the court has set a standard that the conduct itself must be severe pervasive in a single instance of the use of an offense if it is not appropriate why then should the worker who complains about the use of the n word be protected against cali well again the supreme court in the reading case has said if you complain about a single remark that is not sufficient to constitute protected kind of going to doesn't give you that that protection but in this case there are different i guess there are additional facts and to be considered and that is that although they claim that they were trying to meet in a couple of weeks after this incident they were immediately rehired and they were they also claim that they were discharged six months earlier and they say again it was based in part at least on their base they've not alleged any actions any circumstances anything within the appropriate scope of the computer at par to support those conclusory allegations thank you so we would ask that the that the court subject to any additional and i so any additional offensive remarks they declined that they were terminated and then they were rehired based on any conclusion that it should have been terminated in the first place and they offered their own opinion a bigger conclusion that there terminations two months later it had something to do to fight what they're saying is they're making a number of allegations and there's a whole lot of smoke in fact there's a ghost fire and they're saying that stop but they were canned two weeks later and then run back and it's almost like last hired first fired as you know you may have a good case you may prevail but these agree that the judge misstated the standard and standard is written in any decisions the standard is written as severe and regular we understand the standard disappear or put a set of new out the question i don't know that means that there's some doubt should that normally means you let the jury sort it out you make your best arguments they make their best arguments that's so when you assignments based on their race those three things the totality of the circumstances under the case law that we that we've seen from this court and the supreme court does not rise to the level of actionable harassment returned and then continued to write until the work on the pipeline ran out and they were terminated for lack of work there is no allegation that anything occurred after they made their complaint as i did what it needed to do court that in this case nothing happened there had been no there were no additional complaints after that one complaint that was made to grant which was rightfully transmitted convey to tammy bennett supervisor chesapeake and its  very clear that the single use of the n word is enough is enough for a place of to have a reasonable basis for believing that the laws are being violated and given that played just the right and i would ask this court to take that step and to make it clear that our laws protect at least in the circuit our law to protect individuals who had the courage to report a supervisor the use of the n word