offense defense would not be available and liability would go to wal mart where there are other alternative approaches to how wal mart could have investigated or killed the matter given the information hunt gave them that as an initial matter the investigation really did not happen on the high end came in after her shift at seven am and made a written report to the store manager she was not interviewed by that sort of manager al someone else who complained and that person had complained to danielle watts and her supervisor had closed the door behind her and him in a room close the window behind them as well and talk to her about it don't you like me don't you like me don't you like me written notice that daniel watson had sexually harassed someone else she had been to report she said that she had to yell at him to get off of her she made two different reports not just one and then the nd one she said that he had been complimenting her on her quote unquote and talking to her about how he wanted a girlfriend and why she single and he was divorced walmart knew all of this and their response to this was to transfer that may end to the night shift now what does that mean transportational watson from the day shift to the night shift and when they did the that danielle watson became the highest ranking supervisor in the story during the day there's a store manager the person running the entire store there's also h r as you can imagine an  and the court should note that this occurred under steam data that she was written up for being tardy one of her many tardies which she did not contest when she came in september to complain she reported incidents that  d back to june two thousand and thirteen several months earlier at no point in time did she report those incidents in addition those incidents were limited verbal comments there were no allegations of touching upon receiving that information wal mart promptly investigated the incidents met with met with ms hunch that morning took her written statement and asked whether there were any witnesses or individuals who could corroborate her statement flippantly told walmart management to ask around and we are talking about a large box store with hundreds of employees and to have an employee look at me respond in the course of an investigation that is correct that information came out to her in discovery and especially what she argues is because there's this prior incident that especially in her case mr watson should have been fired reasonably under those circumstances it issued mr watson after an investigation a nd level warning it separated him from the employee who he had made inappropriate comments to and that a after september after the september two thousand and thirteen investigation so long were promptly investigates her complaints even though they can hear substantiate her allegations they refer mr watson to undergo further training which he dies and  reasonably and in fact prevented and corrected the harassment the alleged harassment notwithstanding promptly sexual harassment and the plaintiff unreasonably fail to take advantage it's up to a jury to decide whether they believe that wal mart has proven that under all the facts of this case every single jury could say that wal mart exercise reasonable care to provide and correct promptly and harassing behavior i believe that's the language that the case the purpose of title seven is to prevent sexual harassment the purpose of title seven is not for plaintiffs to be able to come to court and win money for it