in plessy versus ferguson congress enacted this congressional accountability act and i will brief at page nine you say that ms williams received defamatory comments in two thousand and twelve evaluations were defamatory in the first case as in the other cases and that to you issue is not whether they were defamatory necessarily but whether they were based on ok ok fine you say the issue is not whether they were  that it was defamatory they accepted the fact that it was discriminatory oh i mean that in the record plant i'm sorry show me in the record would i would cite page thirteen ninety seven and thirteen and i would say thirteen ninety seven where where both the office of the architect and and the complainant in the case were required to attend management concepts a class dealing with resolving conflicts and that as a matter of structure would say that there was something wrong in terms of what she had to leave their original  police where they use the word convergence out without without going parsing thirteen eleven or otherwise and just saying the language and thirteen eleven a one is equal to  in title seven it does not mean with all the other parameters that exist in title seven when it talks about forty two two thousand the dash two it doesn't talk about are that it's a totally it's a new act it's deals with new people it's a new environment it's the congress of the united states who wanted this they could have said with an all capacity of what title seven did things that made it a categorical application they did not do that but what concrete standard do you think does not come from title seven that the board should have applied what's the concrete difference between title seven standards and the standard that you i relations act which is also made up and above to the congress of the united states and can i ask on the on the so in the title seven world under supreme court cases harris forklift and the other ones involving that sort of thing was that all by way of interpretation of the provision referenced here a seven o three i believe it would have to minimize actions are entitled to be brought by a complaint and not simply thrown out on a on a motion to dismiss so what is the what affirmative reason to think that this statute despite merely referring to seven o three and not saying in any way we are departing from it that nevertheless it should be the section dealing with federal labor relations act cases and l o r b cases and since they use the word discrimination thirteen seventeen a just as they do in thirteen eleven i would say that they have to go along with it with  jurisdictional level but else elsewhere in the ca there is both incorporation of other regimes like the f l and what not and then some departures so that one would think that congress where it wanted to depart from the otherwise incorporated statutes it said how it wanted to depart but here there are no such departures i would also state that and the other as opposed to the a da the a b a and the rehab act which is all part of thirteen eleven i would say that had they wanted to make it more narrow they would have said that they would have put in a category at gore of the application of thirteen eleven but they did not want to do that i would also state to the court that this is even reinforced by the latest resolution of the house dealing with discrimination that's occurred because of the any cement or alleged any semit comments made there's no such thing that in the latest resolution of the house that something has to be necessarily a one time deal or a ten time ah any submitted comment or otherwise comment to bring an action in the house of representatives for purposes of censure or for purposes of reprimand so i said this is consistent with with how the house and the senate looked at the cia when they cooperate you've got to remember you're honest that nothing had existed for two hundred years in the congress of the united states that there was not one of these acts and they had the authority to act and as an action then that the legislature who could generate new for and the hearing officer and brought forward to the board would you give us a cite for that no i cannot do that i apologize your honor i have not looked for that but i have not done but they i mean they raised it  third place for the board therefore have to wait for the court should not consider did you remember responding to that argument i would suggest page thirteen of respond the morning your honour's may please the court my name is i'm on jenkins and i'm here representing the office engaging in actions targeted towards women or african americans what about more subtle forms of violence are they recognized as grounds for a status in a hostile work environment when i know they're out the thirteen this is me thirteen eleven subsection ok yeah so the government understands miss williams arguments to be that the phrase our personnel actions included in and is it your understanding that if least this theme was presented to the board of one place or another no as we mentioned in our brief it's our understanding that this argument was not raised with respect to mr williams discrimination claim s however it to the extent that it was raised with respect to the retaliation claims this large that the government has highlighted in our briefs is that ms williams failed to explain what what has how she would something at least at a thematic level like there was you know i handful maybe more than a handful of troublesome incidents troublesome treatment and part of what the hearing officer and then the board concluded was that none of them either even putting aside those that the hearing officer just decided we're not credible that even the remaining ones didn't add up nothing to create an overall hostile work environment which the ordinary title seven standers require so that if she was right in her legal contention at non pros specified lack of particular training yes or that's correct and with respect to the issue that judge wiley raised earlier concerning the performance review ms williams alleged there were certain comments included in her performance review that she was courteous occasionally abrasive on those performance review she still received the highest over our performance rating on every accurate additionally she received all bonuses that she was due she was never denied a promotion she was never denied any training opportunities the record actually shows that she was there as they never denied any training opportunities that she requested it argument but i would point to pages fourteen zero four of the appendix through the end of the appendix before the before the corrected certified list they the pages are one point or another  petitions for review and within that document it's argued from pages sixteen eighteen through sixteen ninety one the arguments that are made to the end of the document on seventeen forty nine and within that document of seventeen pages seventeen thirty two it appears my objection for the board's questioning