after several transfers are in various regions of the country eventually becoming a supervisor in the title sixteen units in nashville tennessee  and she was in charge of reviewing supplemental social security income applications she beginning in two thousand and ten  a gentleman by the name of mr orne became her assistant district manager and her supervisor in two thousand and twelve a gentleman by the name of mr o i became the district manager a didn't report that contemporaneously what happened that she no no you're not ok and secondly didn't didn't he didn't he say to her that he thought they were friends and we want to get into this waiting in the parking lot for her when you talk about what's in someone's mind and i really don't want to get you off the argument so go on with your argument in the last question sure and soon after the  incident discussing the open marriage been the perpetrator was in the parking lot and began to wait for her as she began to leave the op is after or one time there was another employee that was with he stop harassing her the conversation did result in mr phillips saying that he had he did know that someone in the office d had been reporting d his conduct  began to ask questions about her she and her husband's relationship now was less was at the point where he asked her how did her has been staying and being separated from the children oh was it something else and he said just basically wanted to know about their relationship and whether that was a baby about her and her children she want to know more about her and her husband's relation to me what was the word excel did he say i want to know more about you and your relationship  pellant was asked to be asked to ask her husband about that it was she was asked inquire as to that with her husband ok you know about that and that was the tone of the inquiry client but did they make some scheduling adjustments something after her complaint that some may have been made but there was no objective reporter finding i guess in my client what was to happen in the her compliance of about fifteen incidents of harassment over a two and a half year period stating that the incidents were not severe or pervasive in and of themselves appellant relies heavily on the case gallagher versus g h robinson worldwide which was decided by this court in two thousand and in which this court found that the district court erroneous lee insisted that objectively possible and the harassment is severe and pervasive the court the district court conflated those two similar and gallagher and in the way if the court reviews the memorandum opinion of the defendant warning and that please the court my name is and meek it sounds i'm an assistant united states attorney for the middle district of tennessee and i'm representing andrew saul commissioner of the social security administration edition court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of social security and this court shit affirm that decision is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of an actionable hostile work environment under title seven this case does not involve any physical touching no overtly sexual comments gestures or jokes instead we had a series of minor infrequent interactions between coworkers and no reasonable juror would deem any of the alleged behavior as objectively hostile or abusive exactly how much  very high bar it has and has explicitly stated that this is not a general civility code so therefore isolated incidents all can comments personality conflicts these are not the type actions  that rise to the level of severe pervasive and so because the bar is so high and the alleged harassment that mr scarborough has put before this court is just simply not meeting that standard scarborough's team and she complained about that it's not harassment mr philips sent her an instant message about sort of buying her time and she complained about that and that's not harassment either so the quantity of allegations  not significant here particularly where the vast majority of the complaints are not even harassment have nothing to do with sexual sexual harassment and certainly do not make out a case also work environment there was no hostile work environment where a plaintiff alleged three isolated incidents over a period of two and a happy years that included both her sexual jokes and alleged harasser twice placed a vibrating pager on her by  to the language telling him that she controlled his as they would do whatever she wanted him to do telling that plaintive to come over to her house get into a hot and bring his girlfriend so they could get into the swimming pool th dave accusations were not severe or pervasive and the court affirmed summary judgment in those cases so when you compare and contrast clarke and bowman to miss scarborough's case she certainly does not meet the bar  a discussion about her marriage or an inquiry about her marriage and that's not the case mr phillips approached miss carter really with each of the incidents in question in this case all of them had to do with his marriage all his comments centered around the troubles he was experience and his marriage when he approached her and asked about her husband who was a contractor net and in afghanistan eyed he was literally crying and asked mr carro how did your husband deal with being away from the children because he was experiencing so much trouble in his own marriage that wasn't a secret because other management knew that he was experiencing trouble as your honor pointed out he thought they were friends he thought that she was someone he could talk to about this and so what's really that wasn't true and she complained  management counseled mr phillips about speaking with within the scarboro in fact they said please limit your discussion about your personal business and the record reflects that no additional comments occurred after october of two thousand and twelve so the comments ceased and the comments were not based on her sex or had anything to do with sexual harassment i also like to move to the elation incidents in the parking a parking lot that your honor brought up it's important to note that each of those alleged incidents there was no interaction between mr phillips in this car broke in the parking lot no interaction whatsoever keep in mind this is an employee parking lot so mr phillips has the right to be in that lot coming to and fro and parking there the same way that she does he testified that he would leave his cell phone off while he was at work and when he would enter his car in the evenings he would ship is text messages his voice mails and maybe return phone calls and so any accusation that miss caro has that he was quote waiting for her i completely incorrect there's nothing in the record to support the notion that he ever waited for her and in fact there's no evidence to rebut his statement that he checked his cell phone checked his messages and return phone calls if so that accusation is incorrect and this court should not reach the conclusion that miss carter reaches which is that miss mr phillips must have had some sinister motive every time he was in his car there's no evidence of that and and that should not be considered any further about court other instances that philips worked together from two thousand and nine to two thousand and twelve without any incident at all and so these lunch meetings were customary and they were the usual and after the open marriage  comment that mr phillips made to miss garbo in september th well she did she began to get uncomfortable about going to lunch with him when she expressed that to management they told her she didn't have to go or d they would ask mr phillips not to go so they always made concessions for miss phillips to make sure that she was comfortable i'd like to address the really the management response all the way around this situation when miss scarborough complained about the comment phillips has counseled the comments and it management fountain such as i just mentioned the lunch is there was a holiday party and she chose not to attend there was no problem with that management supported her decision when she complained about an incident in the parking lot management hold the video surveillance they investigated they made sure that nothing was a riot and in fact and i think it was a wry and so that was followed through it so that she would not have to interact with them she asked about staying at her cubicle she didn't want to have to rotate cubicles in the van that she may be closer to mr phillips and management granted that request when she complained that mr phillips was staying in the office has five hundred and thirty when she needed to close management counsels him and told him don't stay in the office anymore every single time that she made a complaint and i want to add the last one as well when she complained that he had contacted her about certifying his time sort of on her time excuse me even though she testifies he was responsible for doing that in the absence of management she still complained and management changed the procedure so that she would not have to interact with mr phillips so at every turn management took action that was necessary that to prompt corrective action which is required under the th problem with the employer law bil standard and that is that you need to take the fine if in the plaintiff's consideration whether or not she found the comments in the workplace harassing or offensive and again that is back to the gallagher case now what is potentially the issue is the object standard also set out by gallagher and that is where the army is objective really hostile and  considering be objectively hostile environment the gallagher opinion clearly states that you take all of the totality of circumstances in reviewing whether or not a reasonable person would  work environment objective like cost and that is what the district court failed to do it conflated both of those standards into one and that is what we are appealing here today  subjective standard of whether or not my client found the work environment severe and pervasive pervasively hostile is clearly established by the record be objective things of what we have here are fifteen in the incidences that she is complaining of and clearly defined in the record this port talked about the st instances where we have discussion of the open marriage and whether or not  being good for and he wanted to show or tell me how much he considered me a good brand and buy the made back into a room and he said that he and his wife were having issues and she was and that his wife wanted to have an open marriage and he then asked if my client knew what an open marriage was she then thought the whole situation to be inappropriate and left the room and totally left the room and that that bears itself out not make any further comments any shit she was asked what her response was she said i didn't know what that was but it sounded like he needed legal advice ok his response we walked out i walked out that was it that was it to my recollection that was it but i wasn't comfortable at that point i was which thank you x twenty nine and thirty and then concerning and then if you take the the circumstances and then follow that up with the incident in the parking lot now council says about ensued in the parking lot and the and she reported supervisors the supervisor said let's give it a little bit of time and we will look at the videotape a videotape which they can no longer find they talk they've been said well we talked to the security guard and the security guard didn't see anything and therefore it was all dropped that is their report of what happened they are still there why is he in the parking lot with with mark thought why is he there observing her well what now wait you said why ask why is he in the parking lot miss jones explain to us that this is a common employee a parking lot you know employee is required to just hop in their car and immediately speed up if somebody also said that car no meditate make a call or whatever they can do that just because two people happen to be in the parking lot at the same time what is the problem with that no your honor totally correct however when he when he came back and grow up to the plane and she had a witness there with him and look she was incidences of harassment and her case was allowed to proceed so the defendants appellant she's going to applebee's reliance on clark is is mistaken and should be disregarded by any analysis  and i see i'm out of town unless the court has any further questions