hostile work environment changed my client's life and this particular day in february he's assigned to clean up various washers women's washrooms and men's washrooms he's in charge he's told what to do he then does everything cording to the book puts out a sign saying this is a restricted area then what happens is that there's some female black women who then takes offense to what my client's asking them to be leaving the area instead they call him a name that because of is he had a mental disability not that we're challenging or saying anything about there what we're saying is that we could affect a defendant is said that this is a big burly guy three hundred thirty pounds six foot four  e shouldn't he offended by any of this or feel that there could be some aggressive nature towards him but it failed to take into account that this person that by having not the same capacity of feeling that the that word of counsel that may go to the subjective element of the legal standard that there is an objective element and this was not objectively severe or you lose even if subjectively he had a severe reaction to it as you represent we also point out your honor that he did then after death because he felt it was affecting his his  terms and conditions of employment went to bernie hudson who was a supervisor over the women and complained about the treatment and also that it was affecting the truth to get his work done instead of that supervisor taking action he dismisses it like file a complaint and now my client has to go back into the same working conditions where he was still continually being harassed in fact women then took their clothes off in front of them which would certainly seems like the man would have done it the woman that certainly would have been considered sexual harassment really look at what the judge did he did seem to feel that what was done was wrong but the incident in of itself was not enough to protect a it is sexual or racial harassment well that's just ladies room and that's what she did she wasn't used to whatever they're going to be calling that future with rain genders and other things that that was offensive to him but she should have been walking in there and he had the signs up and i think i think he's genuinely angry about that that's just the way i react to what happened one day live and i understand that but that one day event affected him and shortly after that he wound up going on disability and into this state hasn't returned to work so it wasn't for him a devastating point in his life i know that this is not one of the big issues of this court always deals with but it is one that i think should have had not to need to have legs and go to a jury to determine if this fact of what was going on was and in violation of his rights now he would have used the n word to them when they were calling him a white cracker and i think we'd be looking it would be offensive to this when you know we really do deal with that issue and then he goes to a certain level about whether it's something bad but not really damaging and i that's why i go back to what really happened here and he was highly irritated with the work he was doing with stripping and it gets it's ugly you know this is i don't want to get back on that locker room talk stuff but that's what happens sometimes the drop in on is really fixed for you know it probably took a while but i guess it's not necessarily clear to me what becomes of fences and what is just shop talk because a lot of times they've seen when these are derogatory things they're going back and forth and resurfacing and stripping and whatever the floors in each bathroom i would just hope that somehow we would look that there can be without an absolute attack on a person that knew that somebody could be offended enough that you know we don't like to use we're politically correct anymore but at some point i think what the person saying can actually cause a mental injury like in this i want to make it clear what this case is not about right at the outset it concerns me because it appears that mr smith is trying to argue a disability case disability discrimination case this is not a disability discrimination case it may have been a one time but he dropped that he dropped that when we filed a summary judgment motion well this is disability we're not sure that made in one of the reasons that he dropped it but he the only issue here before the court is whether the district court should be affirmed because there was no look we believe that a support should be affirmed because there was no evidence that the few alleged incidents of name calling and other non physically threatening behavior by both male and female employees a single day for first two thousand and fourteen against the plaintiff a postal service custodian mr fellers who happened to be stripping the florist on occupied in an occupied locker rooms against the advice of his supervisors was sufficiently severe or pervasive to sustain a hostile environment claiming title seven and the district court judgment can also be affirmed because there is no evidence absolutely no evidence that postal service management was either negligent in discovering or attempting to remedy the legit harassment instead the only evidence that we have in the record was that the harassment see after postals after the postal service manager investigated mr feller's harassment questions now there are a couple of misstatements that i want to address specifically regarding mr smith's summary of what happened with the investigation we have two decorations in the record and one declaration from bernie hudson who was the overall i think the plant manager the shift manager at the time or at the manager of the of the of the female postal employees and  also have a declaration of mr probably who was mr feller's supervisor and both of them said that they spoke with mr fellers they asked him to put his comments in writing and they also spoke with the alleged harassers and investigated all the claims asked everyone to put their claims in writing but it doesn't make any difference because there's nothing in the record here that anything happened after february first of two thousand and fourteen and one of the other things that mr smith has argued is that his clients this may seem like a minor thing but it is client's life has changed forever because at this point his client is still a postal service and employee he still works for the postal service that's in the record that's clear and he indicates that he tries he may have tried to go for apply for a some type of disability claim or whatever but the point is the record also states that that didn't happen until august of this year months and months after this single day a pressman so nothing has changed he was a postal service employees then he still postal service employee now there is no authority which settles the which which supports mr feller's challenge to the district court's decision and he seems to really misunderstand what his burden was in opposing the postal services motion for summary judgment instead what he's argued on page twelve of his brief is that summary judgment should have been a night in order to give him a chance to quote develop the supporting facts but as this court has held summary judgment is the put up or shut up moment in a case where the respondent has to present all of the would be reasonable can see the circumstance where his client mr felos would be more sensitive to name call i mean that misses the point first of all there's no evidence of mr feller's heightened sensitivity it and it only in any rate the only relevant is whether these alleged three to four actions which are made both by men and women were so objective we serve beer or pervasive to create a hostile environment there's no evidence  there's simply no evidence of this in this case and once again judgment can be also affirmed on separate ground here that there is no basis that the management was negligent in responding to the alleged harassment so unless  him a series of questions and concerning his instructions and i asked him he would keep gave me p t s to fight as to what those instructions were and i believe the testimony was he was to try to work around the other employees work around there and i think that's that's correct that's correct but i think he still that that's still got his super bicycle again to address what you said just about the sign now and i'm certain from every day apps or vacation you've been in public buildings where there's a sign put down washing clothes they want you  certain lines it's a slip and fall but there's also other ones that don't want people in because it's going to impede the ability to get their position done especially when you have a male going into a female washroom to clean up the other thing i'd like to just point out is that yes they may have done an investigation after the fact but we had a situation where the supervisor bernie hudson who was told about three compare men to mr feller working environment that he needed his assistant and he could it really could have gone into the situation and passably worked it out with the women to determine what was going on and what's true what's not true this is the point of decision making that can be done without going through the rhetoric later ryan of people having a chance to think about what they're going to say here we had the immediate situation where somebody can come in and eliminate the issue with then may not even have been more than my client's an ok they apologize or something else and everybody moves on instead we've got to play goes back into a situation supervisor doesn't listen to him and he still being subjected to an impairment in his work performance and still working there yes he's not working it is far as counsel said he's and he still working for them he certainly isn't i mean at this point i did see documents from him that they put him at that least union and notify him that he was being