that point well your honor i think that ultimately that is the question that the jury to decide is a fact question at what point you have reached that line just the same as it would be in an they see obviously they're different but in a situation with the aren't where you don't we have the same people coming in to one business location so you kind of know your cast of characters who could be making the graffiti you're spread the can you know if you look at the graffiti sample for example it could be different people making this they it's not the same individual they each day there are three mu employees coming in and for some reason many of them want to engage in the extremely unusual situation because of the nature of the workplace but i don't think that means there are certain types of workplaces where title stands and can no longer applies i guess well sir but suppose it goes that supposedly each counsel who are ready for your argument and you just go the clock which is which is good so will get this fixed before we get going again clark not if you can hear me if you want to just go ahead and disconnect from the meeting and come back in using that same link and that remains in northern stander it's been on the showing that those individuals lost significant were substantial amounts of money as a result of the removals and that is just not the correct standard there's never been a requirement you show significant monetary loss and you show an adverse action in the context of a claim you just have to show something that would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity and a more fundamental there is no requirement to apply any other or any other questions about what was in the mind of the employer the employer has written out in black and white what it why it is doing what it is to complains of harassment but it's not on the truck it's at one of the terminals so so there's so this person is still i suppose in theory a connector connected to her work do you have the same results and other words the stopping of they're not the new from the truck but they have complained of harassment how do you how do you handle those two different types of harassment claims from two different locations with then this business model well i mean then presumably the removal policies that remove complainants from trucks would not apply because they're just in the terminal or in a more traditional w burlington northern now being separated in and out of the south especially in a terminal is probably not materially adverse because it doesn't actually have much in the way of ramifications economic or otherwise remove from a truck especially when it's promptly removed from the wrapping situation which in most but not all instances involves the truck in which it is derived rather than being a remedial measure it with generally don't measure or opponents contend constitutes an adverse employment action because for the time being they are being paid the same per mile that they would otherwise learn the big continue driving without an interruption and this they say is the real reason complaining drivers from their truck that is to resent them for reporting the sexual harassment they're required to report by company policy but they take a step further and they say motives don't really matter that might be and wherever it might occur is the st the very st remedial step that's prescribed and c r s of these remedial policy which every driver knows about it now which is sure the safety of the driver who is complaining of sexual harassment in anticipated circumstances anything we don't know in advance what those circumstances are going to be this policy sexual harassment you have to do something and so it makes sense to do the same thing because of the nature of the report just something that happens in real time and so rather than trying to sort things  at the prompt and effective or medium that hears that your presidents prescribe so we stand by our policy we stand by the enforcement of our policy we do it robustly we do it continuously we are in the trucking industry these are  looking forward and how a company like this wants to run its business and looking forward to prevent this kind of conduct in the future and struggling with tell me only as it is any defend ourselves and we have we have successfully defended ourselves because when you're investigating claims like this we don't have the subpoena power we don't have the ability to put people under oath we don't have the ability to fine people we don't drivers think about getting paid to think about i get paid this minute i get paid this think about what do they have at the end of the month and their paycheck and that's what that's what matters and there's been no evidence of why there's no evidence either way for after july everybody in the directing industry and that's the language that was referring to but that does not change the title seven hundred dollars it does not speak to the case in cases like this one where the policy itself doesn't last and why one is the cause