for report him or complaining or publishing the language sometimes is conduct which he reasonably believed to violate the law during the years two thousand and nine and two thousand  complaining multiple times from september of two thousand and nine until august of two thousand and ten that for longer he was found in her immediate supervisors desk drawer account t terminations in june of two thousand and eleven am for emotional injury because plaintiff believes that they depended retaliated against or requiring a charge in january of two thousand existing correctly pointed out that in order to prove a case of retaliation to get protection against retaliation plate of must prove that she engaged in a protected activity in the one number two that there was an adverse employment action by the employer number two and number three that there was a causal relationship between the exercise in the protected activity and the adverse charge the court went on to say that no reason that there that the employer didn't meet even the st on a test that is engaging in a protected activity as a matter of law reasoning is gone i think it's important to look at the concept of protected activity which comes from the statutory provisions of the owner human rights act and also from the federal civil rights a harassment in employment or because she has made a charge filed a complaint testified assisted or participated participated as a keyword in an investigation for the proceeding or hearing contract employees who have short term contracts again expire beginning expire again expires girl the title to the protection and that's the point is believe in this case whew especially after she had as the exhibits in the that she was having to teach every day knowing that this from other people is in the supervisor's drawer and it was very very disturbing as she said and i'm setting a record to go to that school every day as she was instructed by the officer that the officer a person named joe johnson would take care what the record also shows that after the initial reporting  fact sexual harassment prohibited by the human illinois human rights act the nd overarching argument is that even if this reasonable this requirement did apply to the participation clause plaintiff advances in argues that she did in fact have a reasonable good faith belief that this harboring of pornographic materials and her finding them on two separate occasions when another female employee showed them to her constitutes conduct that is violated and prohibited by the human rights act so i'd like to address that  argument st about whether or not the reasonable miss requirement is required and they're both the opposition and participation causes the human rights act now claims at the times to parcel out count one count two and argue that different standards should apply here but from both a factual any legal perspective count want to count two are based on the same set of operative fats in this case and they do require application of the same reasonable miss standard from the inception of this case harassment claim in i j kahneman properly pointed out that she said in her deposition she was in fact bringing in a claim for sexual harassment about the college so to say that this has always been is plain that does in her reply brief and on appeal now that this is never been about sexual harassment the cop the facts from that sexual harassment allegation are so inexplicably intertwined these two retaliation claims that they cannot be separated out and her band in those claims at some original whenever doesn't activity doesn't apply to complaining about every subject under the sun as plaintiff with five to argue in this case and this situation in order to proceed on both of her italian issue claims and to meet that st level standard at the crime especially case where she post so inform both count one count two these two instances where she found the pornography in the death she needs to prove she had a reasonable good faith belief that those two instances falls within the ambit of conduct prohibited by title seven or human rights  that planes it doesn't have to prove the merits of a sexual harassment claim in order to proceed with her retaliation claims but she does need to prove that her claim for sexual harassment is not baseless so there's a difference between a merit  conclude that these two instances where she sees the material in her death outside the presence of her supervisor and where there's no active conduct on behalf of her supervisor where he showed them to her talk to her  to clarify for the record i did hear plains of say that it is a fact in this case that his office or his death or for that matter was a place that was frequented by female personnel and that fact is nowhere in the record plaintiffs can see that in her deposition that she had no job the requirement or authorization to be in his death when he was not present he didn't directors would be in there and there's no there's no evidence on the record especially as to female personnel but that anyone was especially authorized o it doesn't argue the trial court misapplied illinois law or th circuit law in this case she simply prefers and suggest that you today apply a different standard from the th circuit and is doing so she's asking you to say that there count two for her in this case and that's where she asked the court to kind of circuit check with her over to the th circuit where she relies on the slugger case and in support of that she says that you can sit here today and that there's this wilson case that federal statute so the statute will be given uniform application and i appreciate that only human rights acts not a federal law that is mirrored after title seven their intent are the same and the participation opposition causes are identical so to say that  the the issue as identified in wilson would then be that she would have different decisions based on almost identical statutes in state in federal courts within illinois it's not a case holding it's not even an interpretation be relying on that and ask you to extrapolate facts and holdings from that is a stretch and it's not based on any authority at all and the glover case the issue th rely on it for is not actually about whether reasonable nish should be a requirement for filing a charge the glover case is about an employee testifying in another person's char's so it's not asking whether or not the person who testified had a reasonable belief that the conduct at issue really violated or fell within the purview of the human rights act or the title seven so the th circuit that walker case has absolutely no bearing and it is explicitly contradictory which are seven circuit now as far as the nd argument biplanes if that she did even if there is a reasonable miss requirement claims it does claim that she does she does meet that standard and that she did have a reasonable good faith believe that these  instances these two discoveries did constitute sexual harassment so her internal reporting in filing of the charge should be protected under the human rights act in the trial court said no when looking at the facts and the basis of the record before it it  thinking in this regard that these two instances were sexual harassment or arbitrary capricious unreasonable and illogical and since the inception of this case she has claimed that she had a reasonable good faith believe that seeing these documents constituted sexual harassment and defendant has always maintained that she did not nor did she initially actually never reported her file the charge about conduct even prohibited by law because these twenty two instances don't rise to that level now if you look at cases that are cited in our in our briefing board in madison which were both relied on by the trial court the court in those cases also says places not complaining about conduct that even falls within the category of conduct that prohibited by a human rights act  sexual physical touching complaints about sexual physical touching somebody was touched on the buttocks three separate occasions and they were grabbed in between their legs and when they complained about it the sudden circuit said no we don't believe the body falls within the category this was joking and it's very clear based on the record that was before it that that's not reasonable that you leave that would be prohibited by title seven and then enhancing there's two instances of physical sexual conduct where a supervisor presses harass into her subordinate and then she reaches around him on another occasion again making physical contact he complains about that in court said no it's not reasonable for anybody to believe that sue taking those cases those are far cry from the facts that are before this court now before the trial court this is a plane it's correct a bit any rate it's the idea of the one year period of time the other thing a factors into this is that there were by my count in the record six complaint six specific