reconsideration no i did not because of the fact the court although i had seven days to amend my complaint when he issued his order of dismissal he did not allow me to  complaint with me in poor on seven twenty six two thousand and thirteen and eighty six two thousand and thirteen she was put under private surveillance the only employee in the department of raul a male employee who your court so we made an observation based upon your client's description of what she did after getting the notice she went to her office on a computer for so long as she could and began to create materials to be able to address her activities of and from that the district co again represented that could have acted on the second corrected the so doesn't that give her the avenue to gather information so that she could respond absolutely not because of the fact this case falls right in my with was it was it was a specific allegation that this other employee on company time was permitted to run personal errands yes within the complaint that was filed within the case management time through the know him for reconsideration so there is no way to a man on two occasions and allow a third amendment that point would cost to undo the way on the most for reconsideration the court further goes on to say that a review of the gender discrimination case could not survive this is under italian claim no human even if it could not survive the fact that she made such a claim and allegedly there is retaliation whether the claim are valid was valid or not isn't that retaliation for a protected activity i don't believe so your honor because what happens is big can go the surveillance in late july and early indicate i was at such and such address i performed an inspection here are the photographs of those inspections here are the miles that i travel throughout the city during the course of the day that support me driving from point a to point b c during the time that i'm on the road the surveillance showed her at times when her performance there wasn't heated but she was at properties performing inspections and taking photographs and the like that she was actually  mine for now on during the course of the encounter the plaintive had with the represent is a scratch the record that we had in front of us says she asked whether the re that hearing were not optimal under the circumstances but i think the district were also pointed out that this fowler had notice of what the issues were she knew that she needed to explain to the city where she was when she was there what evidence she had that supported what she had submitted on her and her performance logs importantly and during her deposition we learned this miss valor kept probably in an effort to to assist her in completing those moments songs accurately she kept a personal note book that said everywhere that she was throughout every day that she was working it said what how she was at what she did for which she took when she went to the restroom and she stopped for lunch it was a detail essentially a diary of where she was and when she was there when she said what if a person didn't have a position like that where one would be docking any in that fashion we didn't remove you so quickly between visits you couldn't do the documentation and that person had the same create terminations internation proceeding where the employer said was asked you have pictures or surveillance and that person was told that that person would would be operating in a in a totally different position that they would not know what they were trying to to address when you have an affirmative statement that that a surveillance doesn't exist there's of course the case law says the notice doesn't have to be of the sort of notice you might have to give in a criminal matter or another proceedings we recognize that markey saw here what seems to be different serials dress the concerns well not only that she had some materials to address the concerns presented your honor but also that she knew going in to that hearing what the concerns were she was told in the notice of charges that she was represented a september twenty fifth year and that aren't true dates the city was questioning the information that was competing in her performance dogfish where she was and the creation that she submitted to be reimbursed for mileage and position is that would tell her and not that she should ever document where she was shot down especially given the fact that she had a notebook that she had her own personal reference to say this is where i was with my she could have said here's my personal no the surveillance the day the surveillance occurred which would have started on the sex and it went on for seventy is the employer takes no action on the fruits of that surveillance tell after the e e o c complaint is filed because  resources and said this is what i thought they hired an outside agency so i think that they wanted to construe the pleading to suggest that that looking at that thirty minutes leading a thirty minute pleading under italian is futile because of the surveillance he already been conducted choir to be protected claimed  discrimination and seven twenty six two thousand and thirteen she complained to her employer i'm only be being treated this way because i'm a woman in a man's job gender discrimination clear concise we know from well what was going on so they could've terminated her and then billing terminator they only terminated her after she filed the store along either the c complaint which was filed on the thirteenth they got notice of it on the twentieth of september they had this pre term in a precise pension hearing at nine twenty five and then they don't provide her employer has an obligation to tell you what you did wrong and i conclude that you have a position since you submitted a notebook if your records are where you were and what your mileage was there was no way he should have been in there saying you were there ok go first of all you have to tell me the employer this case as i am she actually was in the wrong date so she came into the pretty decoration hearing thinking she was under the gun for a twenty eight it really was nine three she allegedly did on how could she ever prepare for