of our appeal is on the one who dropped the work environment claim the court here we feel erred in that the court held that the work environment claim on their own a liability could not be published based on complaints that were made by the plaintiffs to the superintendent of the school district we believe that was an error we believe not considering that complaint and solely basing a theory of  absolutely so the testimony that you that that plane to provided and that's that's within the appendix a three hundred and nine there's some gaps in it but it's roughly between thirty nine dollars thirty one cents where he discusses his complaint the superintendent  brings this caricature which was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of everything that he had been dealing with and he brings that to the superintendent and he says and you know essentially enough is enough look at this is offensive to me to mike or you know who i am you know and  the superintendent at that point says this is disgraceful i'm going to address this i'm going to investigate this so that alone is the evidence the superintendent of the superintendent didn't say this is something for the board to look into this is something for the board to review this is something you should take to someone else the superintendent said i will address this this is unacceptable and that's within that testimony and that conversation that mr cain had with the superintendent so i think that that is your evidence that in this instance the superintendent in in terms of the day to day operation of a district and reviewing and conducting investigations and the allegations of discrimination the superintendent is a final policymaker the idea that the only way someone would be able to within a school district environment make a complaint that if it's not addressed with zen with them create a mono liability or any liability if that complaint is made to a member of the argument here my understanding is from the testimony that was after the judge selena said he would get to the bottom of it that the caricature was not acceptable that their  selena about it after the stroking went so even if we agree that he was a policy maker you have to show some kind of deliberate indifference i believe to the complaint and i don't think you have shown that have you i think we have a i don't respect leon i don't agree with that with that resuscitation of the facts i don't believe that mr cain did not want an investigation done or that he called off an investigation and in  fact i think it's in the appendix five hundred and twenty eight dollars there is testimony on his part that in october so a couple of months after he spoke with the superintendent and the superintendent indicated he would take care of this this was unacceptable and he would investigate but he followed up with a member of the district saying hey what's going on with that investigation and then that's also further bowl you know further stablished by the e mail that he sent in two thousand and fifteen to the former board member which again i'm not arguing for the purpose of this that is a complaint that establishes notice because it just so happens that the plaintiff didn't know that that board member left the board a month or two prior but that that e mail further shows that that bachelor concept not want or believe that the district was addressing this and pursuing an investigation into what was happening to him is just not the case he was always was and he was pressing as to what was going on even as late as august two thousand and fifteen as he was preparing to potentially come back to work because you have been out on due to an injury  honor that i think you didn't include which i think is very relevant and helps to create a hostile working on it certainly for the purposes of summary judgment where we're allies and whether a reasonable jury could find that this great off the work environment and that's it once or two he said that he said it happened once or twice a year from two thousand levon through two thousand and thirteen also had a supervisor that would regularly mock in comment about his accent the national origin which the testimony for that is a three you know i mean for me not being irish individual you know it's hard for me to see that to look at that and say how severe that is but for mr ok now as an irish individual that caricature that basically you know attributes every single like negative you know i understand what you're saying the test is of course an objective ones not a subjective one and that's the way we would have to look at it but in addition to that there's a environment was never presented as a hostile work environment to to get to these two people and so i don't quite understand how you can say that  was the sponsibility of a policy maker if the superintendent was a policy maker so the so i think the answer to that is and i think and i think the law's really clear that that a layperson like an employee doesn't there's no magic words after they just within that the context of that site that i gave before but it's around a three hundred and fourteen day three hundred and fifteen he says did you discuss your national origin in connection with this caricature at all at all during your conversation with dr phil lynott i believe it was brought up yes i believe i said thing that mr rick honest about this bit of testimony about the conversation with the superintendent dr salina mr o'kane actual testimony was i felt that it was of course against my i felt that it was of course against my national origin question did you say that to dr selena answer i believe i may have said that too or something similar question you have a specific recollection one way or the other answer no i don't celina of course it's correct that even if he had he never reported a hostile work environment and so putting aside even for a moment the question of whether  the superintendent was the final policy maker for these purposes we have to take it one step further one did he report a hostile work environment no he did not and to did the superintendent or the school district board the school board cause the hostile work environment and there is no evidence anywhere to support the notion that they did in fact after he stayed out on disability leave until his position was eliminated the following year there is no indication anywhere that there was any kind of hostility of any of any sort after superintendent selena's offer to help with respect to the incident but it sounds it looks like there's evidence to suggest that reasonably expected that superintendent would conduct an investigation and he paid some gestures in that  way afterwards even though kane said he also wanted to get to the bottom of it it seems like a fairly aggressive incident that may signal some other concerns and that the superintendent very little about it was that enough to suggest it might be deliberate difference well the evidence in the record your honor is that after after mr o'kane spoke to the superintendent and the superintendent offered to help mr o'kane said i'm going to get to the bottom of this and instead of having the superintendent do an investigation he took the matter then to dr dillon and spoke to dr dolan about it when he took it obligation says i'm going to get to the bottom of this and then he doesn't do much good we dispute the notion that he said i'm going to get to the bottom of this i don't think that the superintendent when he saw considered the drawing discriminatory or offensive in a way that would raise equal protection concerns was when this lawsuit was filed as it law isn't that isn't that the problem because if we look at the drawing and we think that it is something that would raise this would be the person who wasn't indifferent has seen it do a hostile work environment that he didn't know about and as and under those circumstances and that the only issue in the case is that that's being raised and being pressed here this is a hostile work environment situation it wasn't any other sort of often just to just to dovetail up your honor i'd not only does there have to be some showing that the superintendent was aware of a hostile environment and wasn't deliberately indifferent to it but it was written that both were reported to them and that he w deliberately indifferent to it but then that it caused that that deliberate indifference at that point caused some further hostile environment to occur and there's no evidence that the either it didn't happen what i would say is that the facts certainly know what most favorable to the point is that after his complaint the conduct continued unabated there's no evidence that ever stopped and in fact plaintiff says that the comments particular comments in the mocking of accent far as the the constant the rice of miss about his accent that he says and i think it's within the papers that that was a regular thing that the regular via cart i do want to point out too that when we're talking about whether the superintendent was was on notice of this being a hostile work environment claim i mean the testimony that that mr cain provides is that and this is an eight thousand three hundred and eighteen that the superintendent told him patrick i will get to the bottom of this this is not acceptable in the district that i am the superintendent of and so he knew that this was inappropriate you know i mean the idea that just you know that would have looked at it was inappropriate this one  that the other incidents are not and then still considered part of a hostile work environment if nothing is done to address that incident that was reported and here but what i would say is while mr cain does testify that he you know and again he does say it was years ago so i was mad i don't recall exactly what i said but i believe this is what it is that the caricature on its face clearly relates to an irish individual and his national origin and at some point there's a caricature that depicts an irish individual they put his name on it is to pick them