district court did not consider anything in those documents  and jacobs on her first you know c complain bases for liability or is your sole argument evidence relevant to help explain her client it is the latter and it's your position that events are eliminated then it really does appear that ms jacobs concern was that she was assigned to a machine which was dangerous in the absence of any evidence of discrimination or other things which she believes occurred i'm not sure i understand your answer exactly if you could if you could bring this evidence to jury what would you be arguing from what would you  there was a continuing pattern of discriminatory conduct which resulted ultimately in her construct of destruction terminations on the basis of retaliation for having filed the original nineteen ninety seven complaint what were the discriminatory acts and nine hundred ninety six when she first returned from layoffs she was told by a coworker that our first day back at work that she that he had been told that the person here had already designated someone else to take her job and she failed that everyone in the department believed that she would fail within fifteen days of that conversation her back pocket he makes comments about not seeing her and he lands in her on her genes subsequently if your theory is retaliation i'm not sure why morning your honour's i'm sonia let neck representing the phone company here today and this case is really much simpler than the briefing would suggest the judge must in order granting summary judgment should be affirmed and with respect to your initial question regarding the evidence that the court considered judge resting indicated that she considered all the evidence that was submitted by the parties and going had filed a motion to strike as part of its reply and she struck that motion as moot because even considering all the evidence even what boeing asserted was inadmissible she found there still was not a genuine issue of material fact on all the evidence with regard to these machines the log records and all that stuff was before the district judge according to her order  know assuming that it seems to me that you have two machines riveting machines and it seems to me if i read the record listen reading it wrong there is a problem the slamming they assign the engineers every morning to check and whatever in fact you got there was an issue of a piece coupon that she was trying to place a cutter arm in there's an issue of how bad it was in law so apparently there's something going on with the machine now what this it has to do with anything i'm trying to figure out how that goes the next step lousy work on the machine well i don't think that there's anything in the record that mallon plays were harassing her about her lousy work on the machine well she she did something with the wheel they took the wheels off the machine and she had a dent in one of the parts and one of the link parts in and they had to work overtime to fix and i mean there's a lot of stuff here but i'm trying to sort out it seems as though there was a machine problem and it seems there were some male employees harassing her doing stuff whatever it is these are humongous machines all of these are very large machines they're not like a drill that you get from home depot and they cost over one hundred thousand dollars each so it's a big machine and that in one thousand nine hundred six she was working on a machine that drilled holes and then put rivets into very large airplane parts and at that time there were real for the part would sit on and it would roll onto the machine and then would set that up for her and then she would be able to do the riveting and at that time one of those large panels started to roll and she went to move it and that's how she was injured that machine and at that time was when everything occurred that she was alleging with there not being enough wheels and then there were dings and then other employees had to work overtime to fix the games and she was making some allegations that that overtime work really wasn't necessary that the part had been perfect and they damaged it in order to get overtime so that was a long time ago the injury that occurred in december of one nine hundred ninety nine was when she was on an entirely different machine brady for number eighty four that drilled holes and riveted much smaller parts most of to the fact that people worked on this as things seem and that would be relevant to an issue such as the issue that misha investigated as to whether there was a dangerous condition and boy should have done something about it it's really not relevant to the issue sex discrimination or retaliation it maybe i can see why that's not relevant to sex discrimination why couldn't it be relevant to the retaliation claim if she was treated differently with respect to her complaints about the machine well as she testified at her deposition other employees complained about the machine as well and the other employees who worked on the machine on the different shifts they or eight months prior to her filing the e e o c charge and she had problems with the machine from the very beginning in back in one nine hundred ninety six so that was even before she filed the charge so it's hard to find an inference of retaliation here when the supposedly discrimination aside for a minute she files an e o c claim after she was put on the new machine right and it was after she'd been on the machine for a while as a job right the pardon and she was and she filed c claim after she was putting on the machine and having troubles right off the bat but what's your understanding of what she said in the us weekly i see what your questions in her e s c charged she was not talking about the assignment to the faulty machine in december ninety sixth she alleges that her prior workplace injury from the first machine with the huge panels was something that was deliberately done by her coworkers that they set her up for injury by taking away the wheels and she also had some other allegations that mr hunter refer to such as someone wanting to be attached to her back pocket and talking about her panty lines were things that she alleged that he as he charged so in some there's no that your opinion of what the bases over discrimination claim is right there that on appeal it appears to me that she is not arguing that she has an actual discrimination claim because everything in the appeal brief discusses constructive di suspicion on my shoes or what my position is that she resigned and she had taken a leave for personal reasons related to some family issues she came back and the first day she was assigned to a machine i believe the individual is an asset and she worked on this person's machine it was fine the second day that she was assigned to a different machine and she had worked on that machine before with no problems but when she came back and she was assigned to the machine this time she noticed that the employees who had been using the machine were using washers for  she thought that was not a good idea because the washers could break and then she also noticed that the spindle where the drill is attached drifted down about an inch and what that means is that it was out of a mine meant and she said that she thought that if she used it it would crash the machine which would damage the machine and so she told her supervisor that the machine was a piece of crap and that she didn't want to work on it anymore and she was threatening to quit so she went home and her supervisor her supervisor supervisor r representative and her union representative all encourage her not to quit they encouraged her to take a leave of absence until they could find a problem they encourage her to use the employee assistance program and then also offered her something called the quality through training program which is a training program that hourly employees can go through if they want to transfer to another position so she had many options and the situation that that seemed to be leading to her quitting was working on this one machine for a few hours one day and that's where that's right still a part in the record is raising the record shows the machine was good bad didn't work was faulty their claims were correct errors i even wrote that that that's not in the record in and i don't think that's relevant because even if it were a machine that did not work there is no evidence that she was assigned to that machine because of her gender or because she had filed an e s p charge back in one thousand nine hundred seventy and we're talking about march two thousand the supervisor who she was working under was not the an issue on appeal in terms of a sexual harassment hostile work environment claimed i was going to strike you i thought because the machine is dangerous instruments and kills people or whatever they get off the machine that she was being subjected to a hostile workplace that i misunderstand that and you know that's something that you have to ask mr hunter about but it appeared to me from his brief what he was saying was that there was all the background evidence that led to the construct of this charge but he wasn't asserting his jacobs wasn't asserting a separate claim for hostile work environment because at the lower court we did not breach that issue of a sexually harassing us to work environment