this on your own or pay six of our brief for the person who says however comma she is not the person who filed or signed her charge well and they say that there was a signed charge in their brief so i pulled the charge and it appears that maybe it's someone else's before after it was pointed out to you what did you do to acknowledge and correct that error so that i wouldn't so that the court would know me going to look at the evidence to see if you knew that that was not true did you follow agency to assist in this matter in addition to the questionnaire they all three of them but attached twelve related farms on or i guess you could store them on the timeline of all the issues the question was does it contain any requests for remedial action i don't believe that that statement you just read contains a request remedial action  literally but i don't but i've read it here as before today where the where did you request did your client request remedial action in the you know that's it it's an exception to allow the intake questionnaire and so it's a you have to at least comply with the terms for the exception well that's how lucky cases there are it's not necessarily the exception of past two requests for the asking for them to do what to do investigate the matter and sue to come out of the meeting that they complained about which is why they list all of their harms that was all the parties they're complaining about how they were harmed and and i mean that mentions it but she's not complaining of that she's complaining about a loss of promotion which is retaliation and then at the end she summarizes what her flames are race based color national origin and retaliation and she never  she says that it's because she previously complained about hostile work environment she was denied and also because of her brace that she was denied a promotion that's what this charges about not about a signed off on after the interview questionnaire you have to look at all of the documents together and this is the main holding the whole wacky as they say you have to look at everything combined you can just go off the charges and up and i guess that's when i ask you a few questions that doesn't matter at all the fact that we have this grievance procedure that tries to resolve situations like this should not be include any way either factually brutally or an  no exception that says you can go to anything outside of that so that's gone it's also has been waived because it wasn't brought up to the district court but let's deal with the intake questionnaire issue itself that we were never given notice urbanised he was never given notice of that it did not contain a request about action it was not signed as a whole like it was an affidavit and most importantly of all he was not given notice to us know that's right on start yes and so when the argument comes opposite to us and says ok say we what about all this in summary judgment proceeding what about all this intake question are we say wait a minute how can that be used against us and they just recorded the right thing to follow the law and said no no i didn't take questionnaire doesn't qualify now then what in reference to what the district court didn't do in in mr clemens hostile work environment calling even if you buy the argument that judge will supply to the plate it's about these are what's in the intake questionnaire ok what judge fitzwater did was find different things he did an contain the argument that there was actually a hostile work environment that she was complaining about all right i think perhaps it wasn't a concession but i think it's true that there was another an allegation that in the children the second thing the when you look at the dates listed in the charge this is not a continuing action it's discreet it's saying this date and they said and by the way she resigned on this date what how in the world can she be having a hostile work environment after she's resigned because that's what the charge implies by the dates listed there so it becomes your rational and that's what the judge was saying this is not this doesn't make sense that you would have these da said look what she's really complaining about is this two thousand and nine derrida time to two thousand i think ten or eleven which was three hundred days prior at least three hundred days prior to that date of charge so that can't possibly they can't get there from here and then and they also are the fifth thing that judge gets rather looked at was the apparent what he called the apparent hostile work environment claim their response was to jump to the intake questionnaire immediately it wasn't to say oh yes it does so we think the way that question and they've they've now truck driving up to this court but in front of judge bridgewater he considered it  been conceded who apparently conceded now the first issue that was brought up by miss jones in in her argument presentation was the failure to that gets into the latter part of the tao title nine mcdonnell douglas analysis they've gotten presuming to get past the timing and scope let's go to the gym nonce from georgia reason so we had with disclaimers failure to provoke claim was that she said i a right so i ask her those questions on her deposition ok what let's look at ms why she's qualifications she's up she's more qualified than you're right and we go down the list and she said yes yes yes she's more qualified and then i her don't you think it's reasonable to give the position to someone more qualified she says yes that's the evidence that we've gotten from the district court on the failures from oklahoma so we say she's more qualified than you yes waived anything ok i don't believe opposing counsel is arguing that yes that's fine right and i don't want to belabor any of this and i don't need to take up the court's time but i do want to do but make the court aware that even if think with regard to the information claims i would just say that the this is of a somewhat confusing case but it's it's just because they're all so many it because it's three cases fall into one that's really only why it's complicated at all it is really just boils down to policy doesn't practice get rid of the constitutional claims and tiny sco provides a case and legitimate kno tory actions to take care of the tunnel sometimes and that's it i would yield the rest of my time unless the court has any questions last one of the things that mr pratt and mentioned he mentioned we have no ninety three claim case because of the fact that there was no policy that was violated and obviously we disagree with that all three policy missler testified in this was presented to the court that it's just a policy it's boilerplate language set out by task b which is the texas efficient school board just because you have a policy doesn't mean that you don't have a written policy of description discrimination and all the testimony is consistent on that matter and just once again we do want to point out we contend that we did address the bill or to promote in the brief it is set for the not under it set forth through facts throughout the region itself and the court lower court ruled that it's not just that she has to prove who got the job it could be shifted to who got the job was from a different race or that she did not get the job because she's black and that is why the rather read in front of this court we mentioned first the comment the leadership committee told her about the fact that our interview disappointed person that you're never going to get the job that we go into all the other cases that she did apply for the jobs leading up to the last assistant principal job she doesn't know getting caught the job but she maintains that she i didn't get the job because she's black and we did state that in the briefing for this court on out of that's how whether the person was more qualified or not we don't even know who the person is well that's not exactly the requirement to honor the mcdonnell douglas case that such but supporter of us it's either that she has to prove that the other person is from a different for the for the moment she disapproves of the person was from a different race