on to the next case of the day which will be gates against the chicago board of education deplorable and he believed that he was he went did not want to you know do anything improper but he was asked by well everything that was happening and as you can see from the record you know the comments that were made to run practically august september was he's passing gas and now he's trying to use the earth and call mr gates and by the end word you know that mr mr and mr gates reported that behavior to mr mr ri discussion of the lines of cases dealing with hostile environment based on racial and comparable epithets what i didn't see was any acknowledgement of the difference between uses such language by  coworkers and uses language by supervisors directly to the person who's being attacked and in particular for example rogers against the life insurance are ideas robinson against paralysis case involving the shooting and university of illinois and chicago and johnson against advocate health we have repeatedly noted that when a to who was doing the talking to provide reference there was in connection with an article in the harvard business review in essence you know what's really management responsibility it's not really comparable to the most toxic racial slur in american culture me let me just raise with you and i'm a seal my concern is about the analysis here and first of all we have the district court both in quoting the so called hellish standard for a hostile environment and then relying on a couple of cases that used when we have expressed fully and repeatedly rejected the notion that that is the standard that has to be m example in jackson against racing insurance against their advocate health i'm also very concerned as i indicated a few minutes ago about the district court's failure to engage with who is doing the talking this plaintiff was told engineer at his school he was the only person in his department his supervisor was someone with whom he communicated with approximately three times a month so the idea that this con work independently and they usually interact with mr mayer approximately three times a month or so and additionally plaintiff was actually only at work for approximately eleven days between november of two thousand thirteen and november of two thousand and fourteen so it's not so much that calling someone the n word is ok and appropriate but we're looking at whether or not this creative and environment that was the  of the circumstances in the cases before the circuit traditionally i'm in addition to the use of one or two racial epithets there is also conned that by the supervisor  that enhances the hostility of the work environment in the rogers case the court there also look at the fact that the supervisor regularly uses nonracial not race based and used he encounter a school polluted by entirely inappropriate racial comments why why couldn't that or why couldn't you infer from that and it creates an awfully hostile environment the only time i'm seeing my supervisor you know marching up a fence i think that that goes to the relationship that he has with his supervisor rather than the environment in which he works seeing as how he's the only person who actually works in his department when did these encounters with the language you use your was during the period of time when he showed up through eleven am one of the comments was during that period of time the others who were previous record cases of cases where the evidence showed that a supervisor was directing this most toxic of racial slurs from our culture to subordinates and we rejected those