because deals work by mr hoover in one thousand nine hundred nine or thereabouts and and she seems to rely on that is being the only grounds for the hostile environment she doesn't go back in her discussion of a hostile environment and look at the whole history difficult the other thing that i think is a probably did on the basis of race or sex i think well obviously i think the record makes it clear that there was discrimination on just about every minority or every a protected class  humiliating statements that can pollute the workplace making it difficult to take pride in one's work and the case holds that the workplace should be free of discrimination intimidation ridicule and insult i would read that  ford made it clear that even though there had been very little actual  grumpy and had to do with a pervasive atmosphere of discrimination against minorities against people exercise their their protected rights against i guess all these different perspective groups from what happened within that time period fail to understand the morgan holding that says even even though these claims might be out of time you can still look at them as evidence and i think that along would require remained because in order to determine whether there was in fact a hostile environment i happened years ago she pursued that playing it was ultimately dismissed on somewhat different grounds not not there was a final finding that there was racial discrimination kind of an upside down racial filipino or not because of her race or some other protected class but because she wasn't a member of a class that was being wrongfully preferred in that situation they said that the director of the san diego office who was black was purposefully recruiting black people for that all the wrongdoing and particularly the sexual harassment that was going on by mr maharaja in that office and then boom she's promoted and all the stunts you retract and i know that there is an issue they say oh well that that that charge the sexual discrimination charge was dismissed sometime my client was denied her right to a promotion because they were giving favorable treatment to somebody for a draw in exchange for a quid pro quo dropping of her sexual harassment claim or recanted her asking why has that discriminates against her client on the basis was the discrimination against her on the basis of being in a protected class i guess i guess it's a little bit inside out from that but i think it is very analogous to this whole thing about well you were chosen because you're not black  that you know talk about things like we didn't like the furniture we couldn't talk to each other we had we had managers yelling up and down the hall we had we had the supervisor  clearly and yes and i think that as a quarter of the field is you can look at that you have the records for you and what does she have she has a bunch of complaints over a number of years and all she can  really is it was an unpleasant environment and to the extent that she's talking about things that are directed specifically to her she many times she mentions an interaction with joyce cooper which actually happened after the  record what you have is a back and forth between the supervisor and the employee and managers have to be able to interact with their with their employees and was there any retaliation not anything that i can see in the record and neither did the district court you have to saying that all of this came from there's discrimination that occurred in her not her sexual harassment claim that is cooper sexual harassment claim that was filed a year before it was dismissed his untimely the time passed for joyce cooper to proceed and here you are you're you're months later really defines any kind of you know reasonable consideration here and certainly i don't think any jury could reasonably conclude that one thing had anything to do with the other and the current discrimination claim and again i think i understand your question now and i would say no there's a i mean let's just say that that case was still going on that th so i guess that's what i guess i'm just trying to say is that your argument well ye morgan and you you have to remove some of these things you have to you have to parse out what what the claimants so many i mean based on that i don't think that there's anything at the retaliation aspect of that word cases that retaliation is a pattern of antagonism following pretext activity and that can give rise to an inference of retaliation and causation the question of causation whether there's a causal connection requires an inquiry into the motives of the employer and the force of the factually based question that i think should be reserved for the jury but in this case i don't think there's any doubt that there was a pattern of antagonism antagonism going back years  we have the discrimination claims going back to seventy seven to eighty one on on the race nonsense from san diego but beyond that we have repeated instances over the years where she is reminded by supervisors very supervisors that she's a being discriminated discriminated against because if she were had run other matters before and so they're retaliating against her for  because over a period of time she filed right she filed out of staff she had been labeled by the agency as being a troublemaker on as a result of her filing these protective claims and for that reason they were not going to promote her they were not going to give her