my client is a chainmail who's experienced has more experience than the male candidate for this promotion the male candidate is chosen the claim by the defendant is he had  college education it was superior to hers and he had a couple of years a law school and she failed and finished law school she on the other hand had many many years of experience actually doing the function so they say he was the better one because of the education we can certainly see in my client saying that his qualifications my point i believe she was much more qualified than he and now i think he's saying about the person they selected that he wasn't as qualified as she was and his education his college education had no real relevance for the job that needed to be done in this case and that experience was a better indicator of who was the best qualified and the point of course so that is we've all heard cases where the person with experience is chosen over the person with the academic credentials that can certainly be an appropriate choice and the person with the academic credentials would say well wait on i'm smarter well ok but experience counts so the question here is was their choice of choosing educational experience legitimate because that's the  course we have to say well it's a pretext you chose him because he's a ham and you didn't choose her because she's a female now what evidence do we have that we have substantial evidence so that we have the statement by the one of two people who made this decision this is a quote that was never disputed when i fill this position of program officer three i'm going to hire a guy and he is going to do such and such and such and such this person who got to make the decision that my client didn't get the job also over a period of time had said every woman who went to work for this division became pregnant he's angry about that female employees calling to work when their children are sick he was angry about that he said to my client if you were a man you would know the answer to that question you're presenting to me when she approached him for advice he called female workers stupid he graded female workers generally he said female coworkers are getting paid too much that they didn't deserve the pay of men he said females because of their petite size can't do the men the work that men can do he said that the bitch knew she was pregnant when i hired her was angry that a female employee that he hired was pregnant after the fact he said around the office derogatory comments about women he told as it's quoted the blonde in big routinely he used tips and his daily language now is that enough evidence that maybe they hired the man instead of the woman and that education wasn't the reason yeah absolutely it is that's why we're here why don't we in front of a jury that's my question how come this case was thrown now on summary judgment when we have the person making the decision quote it is sane when i feel the position i'm going to the blatant statement without any support whatsoever other than saying it that this was independently decided because you know you have these two people instead of just mr stacey the bad terrible individual who shown his propensities against women so because we have this other individual that is now independent it's ridiculous when you have this kind of behavior the next thing they want to say i guy doesn't mean man you know i feel like i just went back in time that is doesn't mean is they make an argument that when he says guy he means you guys you know like you guys the boys the girls the children the old people ridiculous that's there substantial evidence against already tense of pretext that when he said i'm going to hire a guy he didn't mean a man please the court my name is teresa team house i'm a senior deputy attorney general for the state of nevada are representing about a department of transportation and rock stacee in this matter first of all on this issue of the discriminatory failure to promote the question here really is what ev that put her relative to being able to show another reason if i understand your question of the admission of the fact that he may be more qualified she could still come forward with evidence of your question the in the argument that mr mckenna just presented he treats this as though it was a promotional opportunity this was not a promotion this was an open competitive recruitment by the state of nevada and that means that she was given low points for the fact that she had worked in that section or division for six years it was not a promotional opportunity it was open he said she said she was more qualified so i mean i start her experience your honor based on her experience as a as a worker in that area she felt she was more qualified then i just asked you what what was her statement and you said she said he was more qualified to happen but no i don't think he i'm sorry  qualified than me correct but that was not the dash i just knew because he had the right body parts correct is why he got hired in addition to being qualified and though the issue of the qualified she said he was qualified but she thought she also she had she was more qualified for other reasons correct but she was going on the facts just like mr mckenna just did that this was some sort of a promotion this was not a promotion well that and i guess what i'm saying is if she actually admitted he was more qualified if you know if she flat out said he was more qualified than i was without then i think she wouldn't have proven that your reason was false and therefore she would fail on the pretext but she doesn't admit that she doesn't admit he was more qualified he she   i don't see how you get past that there i mean there were a lot of statements there and i mean if that's not a hostile work environment well your honor cording to the supreme court you have to look at the importantly did it interfere i'm reasonably with the plaintiff's work performance and if you look at the evidence of that she does not have evidence of that it was in her brief just as in her opposition to summary judgment she makes weeping  specific evidence to take to trial for example there's no dispute that there was no there was no physical contact in this case there was never any unwanted physical contact there was never any unwanted sexual remarks made specifically to mr mangas currie there's only one incident of something physical and that was many years ago when mr stacy was angry and he picked one of the coworkers chairs not because of her systems look at the context of these comments the workplace office was very very small everybody was overhearing everybody else's conversations the women would be talking about things about their families and whatnot and mr stacey would make a comment and they would find it offensive what do you think is there any significance in the fact that she never complained about this no i don't believe so your honor because she worked in the office with other women and they talked about it i think they complained to each other the fact that she never complained directly to mr stacey himself i don't believe is the case is really important in this case she had a good working relationship with him i think the reason why she probably didn't complain to him is explain pretty clearly she said in her deposition she always felt friendly towards mr stacey they travel together frequently when they went out to job sites in the field they talk they share personal information is this the kind of situation of a hostile work environment now and more importantly there is nothing and there's no dispute that the conduct of mr stacey did not unreasonably interfere with her work performance she told me or got his wish and she always did her job she didn't stop going out to job sites with mr stacy because he was so offensive to her she didn't stop coming to work because he was too offensive she didn't you know try to get a transplant or something she didn't she did her job and she felt like she did it so well she went for an opportunity that was way out of her animus and express that and create a hostile work environment the fact that you don't necessarily touch anybody doesn't mean doesn't doesn't get you very far because that's not the claim this case claims bias against women in general well the two claims your honor there's the claim of bias against women it has to do with the failure to receive the job and then there's the hostile work environment claim which is a is a separate claim under title seven as i see it and for the standard for that is the standard of a reasonable woman and nothing that means domingo's curry has alleged none of these jokes that she talked about in there are any of the comments that mr stacey made nothing is not enough of this is worse than what you'd see or hear if you turn your television set on at eight pm and watch prime time seems to me that the physical contact requirement is earth factors lessons of less importance that's what i'm saying if you have no physical contact in a case like this you're strictly talking about offensive w is a different factor but i think i thought i'm just suggesting your television analogy is imperfect well i'm suggesting that your honor because the standard is that of a reasonable woman and so if you take a reasonable woman yes she would be offended by trial the forgeries another question right but in other cases where there's been similar types of behavior the courts are saying this is not this is not title seven material this is this is the ordinary tribulations of the workplace is not the kind of thing that title seven was meant to alleviate it doesn't tell seven doesn't guarantee that all of france of behavior is out of the workplace it only guarantees that discriminatory offensive behavior is out of the workplace that he would never work for a woman supervisor he would quit his job before he would work for a woman supervisor this is the man that got to make the decision whether a female or a male was chosen for this job i don't know i'm i do a lot of employment law i don't know but i've never had fax this from about the obvious pretextual issue so we'll  talking about in this case you know what i became a trying very proud to be a trial lawyer i became a trial lawyer i grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and i became a trial lawyer to fight injustice and i have to tell you i think the judicial system and i was always proud of the  system is the only branch of government where the small guy the little guy the weakest in our society can be heard they get their opportunity in a courtroom in front of their peers and they get to find out if they're right or wrong and i have to tell you i am very and i am saddened by the state of our judicial system in the last few years i've been doing employment law for probably ten years used to get to go to trial juries used to tell you if you want to law but you know what somehow somewhere the system didn't like that and so now you don't get to go to trial anymore yet many trials on paper in front of judges and magistrates and federal judges tell you you have to prove your case like to a jury but now to a judge summary judgment used to be disfavored in the law i remember those quote summary judgment is disfavored people should go to court and have jury trials now summary judgment is favored why convenience expediency trials are nasty and ugly time consuming and expensive sure is that a reason people don't get to go to court anymore is the third branch of the judicial branch of government going to be politicized just like exactly been legislated i'm sad and i hope that this case all right we're going to take about a ten minute recess an