this record is that there's nothing in this record that would support an inference that the the decision makers on the four thousand dollar knew anything about any after chief either charge and she was threatened with firing or you step it up or you step up if you don't like it you leave that's the way it is here that's the way she was treated after the retaliatory treatment does that have to does it actually have to formally rise to the level of a hostile environment type of claim or is it enough to show that the way she was treated would object to leave would be enough to the turtle somebody from engaging in opposition to that is from the right of your it's the latter is a letter there was also so you're not actually making a some hostile environment claim a sort of an if the adverse consequences should speak you're not you're not making the arguments are correct that's correct all of these things combined would have persuaded her protected activity and things that happened to her have towards could you just kind of itemize summarize force what she experienced after she engaged to protect the protected activity that you say constitute a television yes or four thousand between aside from temporal park seventy between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions even if we look at them collectively that would enable one to say that there is a clause of all linkage between the two beyond just temporal proximity and other words who are the people who are engaging in the adverse employment act actions towards her and what would one what evidence is there in the market that might lead one to think they were doing it because of her protect activity beyond the mere fact of the temporal proximity this actions were by  adverse to her even though we don't they don't say why they're doing the adverse thing that's correct medical leave of absence mr maylie sat down with her had a meeting with her to tell her that her numbers were not good she claims that after that meeting she wanted to hurt the rest and shortly thereafter he went after her to her bes started yelling at her in front of her coworkers and right there and then said shape up or shape out it's one single and sin and it's not their friend incidence of the yelling and the meeting and the shaping or shape out is one single by internal complaints and she also mentions that another coworker me sir he said he told her that maybe had told him that he had said that the next person to be terminated would be discovery about things that things that happened her you you keep describing these actually she complains of as discrete adverse employment actions that mean that's not a little higher standard their theory their theory this specific issue with the manager that came after we believe that she had a duty to a man that complained this were things that happened i'm here after all the allegations that were included in the complaint occurred but even more importantly even if we didn't or the fact that she did not amend the complaint there is evidence on the record that angela estes that new sales manager had absolutely no knowledge about her that's why you said that basically there are three we have the ones that are car with the other manager which the position is that she had no knowledge that this was happening there is the other which is the four thousand dollars chargeback with respect to that one district court correctly concluded and that's the evidence on the record i don't mean that i mean another words he was just this one narrative you could tell about was the cure is what your response to this nothing the windham doesn't seem to be doing anything very negative towards her other than discriminatory comments by the various people there but they're not imposing a chargeback out of the or from owners of programs they're not threatening her with being fired she engages in protected activity and all of a sudden over the course of a year she is subject to a charge so what we're left with is the alleged hostile work environment and i do believe your honor that this case that this court in the case of thomas responder specifically how that yes he has to be asked how much that in