good morning and may it please the court i have already communicated to your deputy clerk that i'm reserving three minutes for rebuttal and we have already calculated on the clock thank you may have please the court a call security is a private security company with lucrative contact contracts through the u s marshals office to provide security services for numerous courts throughout this country including this very circuit court as well as specifically the gerald r ford federal courthouse in grand rapids michigan kathleen wearing gold was a court security officer from two thousand and two to two thousand and eight employed by a call security there are two aspects of this case one which is a motion for summary judgment the second which is the motion to compel i will address the issues of the motion for summary judgment first as in any security operation that is based on a p paramilitary format the chain of command becomes critical in two thousand and six when and when c s o wearing go realize that complaints need to be made right through her chain of command her chain of command advised her  the first lead c s o said we don't take complaints the second chain of command her site supervisor said any of our sexual harassment or discrimination materials are junk and she's they simply were thrown out she had the opportunity to meet someone higher up in the chain of command that was a contract manager start from chicago who worked directly for a call security she met him on november twentieth during what was purported to be an interview for a job position a promotion that she s in that interview which lasted fifteen minutes she was being raided she was intimidated and she was threatened and she was told anything in this meeting will not leave this room fact in march of two thousand and seven she sought to have a communication with the call security in new mexico contacted them she was advised we don't have an employee handbook and we don't have a grievance procedure in place for the grand rapids office i'm sorry this this timeframe is taking place from late two thousand and six to the beginning of two thousand and seven and the and the reason your honor it is important is because she was one of the issues which arose is i believe you're referring to the promotional issues that took place from over four to zero six those issues were simply directory of the culture in the climate that was created at the grand rapids court by the lack of respect for any policy or procedure by a call security so we are not contending that those are actionable today but we are saying that they give direction to this court as to being able to see how things were done in grand rapids and the reason this is important moving to two thousand and seven because she was carrying the secret shame of having been sexually assaulted by a fellow c s o within the court building in grand rapids after shift after she summoned up the courage to report this realizing the implications of reporting this in that type of environment she found that a call security failed to follow its own procedures to investigate complaints immediately  partially and confidentially what's your what's your best argument in terms of an adverse employment action what's the one you feel the best about your honor i believe that the best argument for that is the fact that the culture created by a call security were complaints were not tolerated where every time she made any comment to anybody about a complaint she was told that that was not going to happen and when she did report this to the sexual assault your honor she was met with a thirty day suspension she was placed on leave she was stripped of her credentials she was stripped of her gun and within a culture your honor where will respect shortly after that she had contact with the federal protective services the f b i and they took steps to seek to remove the perpetrator from the building however there was  was repeated violations by him there were two violations of him and that that caused her to realize all of her fears that were built up by the treatment she had received up to that point were now going to be brought full bore against her i'm sorry all of the fears of what the day after he reported it he was plant playing right he was removed from the district court to the bankruptcy which in grand rapids is several blocks down the road he was also ordered your honor by f b i and federal protective services to have no contact with her which he did on two separate occasions but  when he reported that he was still parking in the same place the they killed where he was parking they they did well let me just ask you this what should they have done that they didn't do this probably better place well i would submit that when when the incidences in december of zero seven occurred she was immediately removed from her employment as a c from employment well that was the book from anything that was there that was the marshals decision your honor after we contend that a call set the plate if you will by conducting a faulty investigation what we submit is a failed investigation as to the true nature of what in fact happened that day which we would submit as a fact question for a jury to decide after hearing all the evidence and seeing all the evidence but it is our contention that when they failed to remove the c s o perpetrator from the building and from employment he was still there he was still present and he was still impacting upon his your client provide information  service to complete the picture i mean it sounds like you were just saying the marshal service had an incomplete picture of what happened did you're all write a letter or do anything to approach them because they're not offended right you didn't they weren't sued they are not sir ok so what what did you do to make sure that the marshal service had all the information your honor when she was suspended in december of two thousand and seven for the incidences i just referenced she was removed from the building she was and iraq iran with all due respect the delay in telling her why she was suspended she was not told why she was suspended this is i mean i don't mean interfered with the question but this is completely  you said in response to judge white that the marshals service said we're not we don't want you to use her anymore and that that was a problem because they had no other work so they know the work and they couldn't use her for the marshal service she had to go your response to that was well the marshal service had an incomplete picture because the investigation by the defendant wasn't well done and i'm saying ok fine let's accept all of that use tell the marshal service your side of the story our client told the marshal service her side of the story after she was advised that she was being terminated and the problem that i want to to emphasize and i don't this to sound disrespectful to what the court is saying she was never told why she was suspended they did not interview her for twenty three days later she had no idea why they were specific ending her and then she was suspicious she was terminated right after that she did file a letter of appeal she did explain to them what happened and beyond that there was no communication with the marshal service but didn't he if he didn't  area because your honor twenty three days later she did not perceive this as an incident giving rise to her suspension she had no idea why she was being suspended so when she said that she didn't recall what she said she honestly believe that the the lack of a viewable videotape is one of the issues that we raised on the motion to compel and we would suggest to you that one of the that the key investigator mr wood we sighted in his in your in our in our brief that he indicated that he had a copy of that on his computer that was viewable on his computer and by being able to view that and show that to the jury they would be able to see that the actions in the hallway of a very narrow controlled room with a large man and a slim woman standing against the wall trying to allow him to go through that she did not in fact bump him that she may have touched him she acknowledged that there may have been touching but that was not an assault that if there was contact it could be attributed to him as well as to her and as the video would show we would suggest there was no evidence that she when she walked out of that control room to the elevator where the witness said he heard this cursing that she was doing anything said having your head down heading to the elevator to go out for her appointment forget about all right some of that heavy stuff that was going on between all of them who was to judge me but if you have somebody in a uniform and a gun who's excited and cursing in a public space i mean isn't that what motivated the does this  honor i would suggest that a call realized that if they were to go in and say she assaulted a fellow c s so she cursed in a public hall where they prove that she didn't damage the door as these eyewitnesses supposedly said that she did but they knew that if they said let's give her five days that if they told the u s marshals what they told her that she first of all who was the person who made that decision would have had the platter placed in front of him he would have looked at it and said y that's enough she's got to be gone and let her go and not accept that five days lifting the responsibility for her terminations from a call security placing it on the u s marshals and say we had to do what we had to do question complaints and they were not tolerated this case should be about sexual harassment complaints the record shows that the only complaint about sex horace meant came in a letter dated february nineteenth prior to that plaintiff told me in deposition under sworn testimony she had not complained about sexual harassment so i invite the court to take very close scrutiny of the actual record rather than argument as to a complaint those words  would say that there's no evidence in the record that anything that was being done apart from sex harassment was because she was a woman that the fundamental problem with the case when plaintiff a claims for example that someone said we don't have a handbook in plaintiff's opponents argument so therefore it must be because i'm a question something that's overlooked by plaintiff appellant plaintiff got the answer as to where there was a handbook in a grievance procedure after she complained about sexual harassment the communication where the company said we don't have a handbook at that location and we don't have a grievance procedure that came on march first two thousand and seven point if filed her first complaint of sexual harassment in february so in response to a complaint about sexual harassment she already complained then the plaintiffs and well those are agreements procedures or handbook no there is not you do we do not have a unionized facility s discrimination or harassment or hostile environment the every c s o including the plaintiff appellant is upon hire given a calls sexual harassment policy mi they're after two times in addition to her higher she was given the policy again and signed for a point of power and admitted that in addition in december of two thousand and six plaintiffs in all were told about a new hotline that the company insists instituted so anybody could call for any problems including harassment we were told that the policy is a joke isn't there's no evidence that anybody told her the policy was a joke rather with the record evidence shows going to plenty of power and is that some of the training material was according to somebody a joke no evidence as to why that person thought it was a joke bad graphics bad power point there's just no evidence of that and your honor i would also smith that the material evidence that was allegedly a joke by some person that material was used in the training sessions that plaintiff of power and gave to her fellow c s o's on sex harassment which included instructions on how to complain about sex harassment there's no question in the record that miss warren go knew how to complain instructed people how to complain but failed to complain about horror rassmann until at the earliest her letter of february nineteenth two thousand and seven that was the first complaint was that that's what she told me under oath ok and then that basically nothing happened to him is undisputed that immediately need day that she brought to f p s is federal protection services attention an alleged assault some six months earlier in the contractor with the marshals right you are correct your honor i can't answer that i don't know she knew how to complain to a call because she had written a letter in december saying i was passed over for three promotions and now we see in the brief for up to seven and she wrote a letter in february and according to just now counsel said she complained all the time to recall so i don't know why she complained to  is and speaking of f p s there's a talk in the brief about the video cameras that failed to or that could have captured the alleged incidents in the parking lot that where  after miss wangel complained and mr quest was removed and told to go to the bankruptcy court that on two different occasions after that mr quest was in a parking lot and drove by her there's not all that happened i thought the point was that there was more of an encounter than that according to the record and according to the district court's both evidence both instances were trivial the first instance was where miss warangal was exiting the parking lot for the day and mr quest was standing at the booth where the security guard stand to check people in out and he was talking to the guy and as most were ago came up mr cruz was standing there was one guy had to pass by since one incident t harassment is this court stated in moments vs goodyear was very very similar case complained of sex harassment employer was didn't investigate and took some action one of the things the employer did in that case they said that the  supervisor would stay out of the work area where the point of works ok and there were a couple of occasions where the alleged harasser came back to the work area had some contact including one time allegedly drove a forklift  not too close court said we refuse as a matter of law to hold that failure if you want to use that word to totally separate and accuse shows the employer did not take a prompt remedial action where there is no evidence that there was sexual harassment in those subsequent context that's moans versus goodyear it's exactly what we have here is go told the knights it's marshal service her side of the story eventually the question was answered i think in a positive it should have been answer in a positive because not only to the marshal service get the initial report this is as to the december seventeenth incident not only did the marshal service get the initial report and then they made their decision but then a call wrote and advised miswiring of the initial decision and said by the way you have an appeal right this one ranko drafted an appeal sent the appeal will call a call sent that appeal letter her own had written a letter to the marshal service she told her story again by the way in that story she said she could have bumped into the c s o in the break room and she could have sworn the marshal service got that water and mr first all looked at that and said i am still not convinced i stand by my s o in that group ok so you have a situation where after this she claims that they're not talking to her they're kind of giving her a hard time and just sort of us there sizing her and our reaction is the post to be look this is you know minor workplace whatever the same thing he's going out the door he feels the guy's late you have a narrow door he's a big guy he's not a huge woman so what if she bumps into him what they don't bump into each other they're not i mean and then that that gets turned into some sort of assault where he's going to be disciplined over it he's complaining over me it seems like there's somewhat of a double standard here a couple comments in response to your question on a first  no one ever recall and concluded there was an assault that was a word that point if you says no one ever concluded that second queerly in the sixth circuit and in other circuits  court's role is not to say chee that was too tough or gee that was too mild your ultimate decision that was a little harsh or a little petty that of course is not the court's job the court's job instead is to look at the marshall services conclusion and the calls here and say is there evidence that what they did whether we would agree with it we would read minds might differ the question is was because of protected activity the record is with out exception that mr first will said i didn't even know of the prior complaints there is not a shred of evidence that when the marshal service said swearing in a public area europe officer in the federal courthouse and you go out in the public hallway and you can't control yourself service contract no your honor but a call has no discretion whatsoever to determine who can serve as a c s so the records establishes that i think no court security officer on this judicial contract or any judicial contract may serve unless the united states government approves them and on this judicial c we have to ask the marshal service that's in the contract between the marshal service and they all get with it yes i'm sorry your honor i missed your question it is in the contract and we put that in the record a call if the marshal service when i said the group what context i'm not sure what context i use the word the group i think i said judge why did you the question and you responded that he was the only one in this any further questions thank you in response to the question regarding the f p s i want to make it clear that c s o were ingle was told when she asked where would i report a crime which occurred in the federal building she was advised that the federal protective services is the criminal investigative arm of the federal court system and that was the understanding that she had when she met with mr roberts and told him of what happened that was why she went to him so i want to clarify that complaints in november and december of twenty zero six and were they about promotion or about sexual harassment they were about promotions which she believed that she was being denied because of her gender because of her being a woman and because they have promotions we're always told we've already picked someone so to get this promotion the process of selecting and interviewing was those are i mean you would agree that those are two very different complaints and i mean if administration gets a complaint about promotion they open a file they look at the qualifications and they satisfy themselves ok if if it's about a hostile environment or or harassment then they have some action to take your honor i need i need you to recognize that the person making these complaints was not schooled as an attorney and was perceiving it from her own world experiences when she wrote these complaints that's what she said because that's what she believed and now that we look at this as attorneys and experience judges we look at that in a different framework we would acknowledge that there are differences obviously but when she saw that she said i'm never going to get a promotion because i'm a woman and they don't want to woman to be a supervisor that was her perception well that's fine but then but then that's a different complaint i don't even mean legally i mean factually you're complaining realizing what was occurring at the end of november and december of twenty six twenty zero six and also that the sexual assault had occurred on november first she was also not looking back and experiencing and had referenced in her complaint the good housekeeping thing about a woman's place in the line was that i believe that may have been in two thousand and five or even two thousand and four but then again the comments about her ready hair and why she was carrying an ugly person all these things that would have affected a woman in the way they did but she because she was a strong woman and she was a sniper for the tactical unit of the grand rapids police department she was a tough strong woman and she was trying to not be a complainer and a whiner and these things just built up and built up and they finally kept cascaded down upon her on november first when she was assaulted and so that's when she began to explore the complaining part your honor i want to ask you to p