term victim of i've been employed by the n y p d will be thirty two years complete this july employment discrimination dates back as force thirty years where the several charges in regard to women discrimination which i just speak of is preventing my career advancement in that nine hundred eighty eight i took my first promotional exam for the rank of sergeant where is the n y p d has had advised me that i had failed an exam that i clearly passed i have documentation which i submitted to the court in regard to the complaint proving that i in fact passed that exam i was never placed on a promotional list i was never promoted from that list i went on to pass the promotional exam for the rank of sergeant three more times the last three times consecutively two thousand and eight two thousand and nine two thousand and eleven two thousand and eleven not only did i pass the last sergeant's exam but i've taken with the l time chiefs who were known and found to be corrupt to the department this is the board i was to go before the dia deputy commissioner of personnel was the last two times chief hole was found to be guilty of conspiring to attack members of the department for their sexual orientation or his perceived sexual orientation of him he was found to be guilty where was the court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court against them and in the parliament paid as a result i'm not accept anything less than reasonable not will be here until late after no ok apart from stopping my career advancement on equal terms and conditions of my employment retaliation hostile work environment harassment both in and out of work place to my color my race and department has use asians within a department and they have recruited agents outside the department of the department i own a house in sullivan county in orange county they've actually reached out to department insolvent county had them falsify official documents sent to this department and used this as a precipice to try to end my career and harm me committing criminal activity disparate treatment it's something that i've dealt with throughout my career and for myself of engaging in protected activity the level of attacks against me was in fact increased and intensified i suffered very x as we speak on july of twenty seventeen the fifth that was my individual vacation day which i took off police officer me assault of the late police officer minnesota's familiar who took my place for one particular day was temporary headquarters vehicles what it stands for this is a vehicle where is the labor laws are broken to do this as part of labor laws as they state the commanding officer can allow one to or not one two or one the department will send and have a fixed pulse assigned to after the fact i was the only one that was continuously assigned these polls in early beginning there was a sky watchtower i would sent in a location with no heat inhumane conditions and want to time i was sent there by myself after that they started to age me and other fixed poles i would have a partner partners would rotate but it's always me the red line manger out of time ok well thank you we'll hear from the other side we'll have time for rebuttal is that everything you didn't reserve a bottle before so you've used up your five minutes most courts stall out pro se or non lawyers to argue and all we do but good afternoon good morning your honour's julie steiner for the aptly this is plaintiff's third federal lawsuit the second one in this court before attempting to litigate basically the same employment discriminat assignment claims are all poor kluger they were all raised in the prior staton case which i will call staton two before this court or they are also extensions of that those prior allegations which the law clearly holds is also precluded in any event none of the claims that mr staton alleges were that he failed to state a plausible claim in his current complaint so putting aside that they are either occlusion or time barred because they are outside of the three hundred day period under the e e o c he does not state a plausible claim for relief in his racial discrimination claim as the district court pointed out he needed to allege an adverse employment action which is something more than just the mere inconvenience it needs to be a materially adverse change in employment which did not occur here for his race based hostile work environment again the district court correctly held that there was no allegation of racial slurs or racial comments or anything that was severe and pervasive in that regard and in regard to his retaliation claim he needed to have a protected activity and a causal connection between that connected activity and some adverse employment action the he claims that there was a july two thousand and fifteen complaint that was filed as the district court pointed out it's not even in any court submission but even if this court were to consider that complaint the there needs to be a more temp oral proximity something that was very close in time and the only allegation is that the  lieutenant hilly and refused to correct his sick leave reports but that was outside three or four months after or before i should say that e e o c complaint so that would be under the case law including u s supreme court case law to go too far too attenuated to be considered timely and many of the allegations now said here in this court were not found in the complaint these are actually new things that i'm hearing today in this court and i ask this court