this time of year joseph versus united technologies think the facts of the case are laid out in the brief but very quickly mister joseph works for technology he began as a course ski and worked there from two thousand to two thousand and twelve except for about a one year period where he was loan from our complaint and from our affidavits a number of complaints about the treatment he received both it's a core ski and at united technologies and so at this point your honor then why are main argument is what our first arc and says you know the issue of in the granting of this motion for summary judgment whether there were genuine material facts for determination by the trier of fact we we believe there were in terms of the continuing violation doctrine now it's important in this case evidence of discrimination at sikorsky but he couldn't sue on that because he didn't timely bring the administrative proceeding to sauces remedies of that then that my understanding at the doesn't have discrimination our argument is that the conduct that occurred at united technologies was essentially a continuation of the conduct below and where he ties it together below the conduct its of course the conduct  and i'll note that not only do i ask you how but your client conceded that on at his deposition that on the terminations from pratt and whitney in a hostile environment and certainly at that location he had no whitney was a from from our position a continuation of the conduct of polo he had he had the problem with the computer system which there had been somebody apparently entering on his segregated computer system in fact we actually had the number a code number of the person and ring that behavior took place at sikorsky and took place at pratt and whitney are believed is that is part of this part part and parcel of this behavior which was designed to now push mr joseph out of the company he ends up terminated it terminate being terminated pratt and whitney because of a number of things that happened because of the behavior at sikorsky and the continued behavior here he also had with his employer here the course there was a claim for the hostile work environment but he was having he was being accused of being a thief being accused of being dishonest and untrustworthy by not a violation of any of these statutes it's got to be motivated by a pretty evident discrimination and where is the evidence of the primitive discrimination apart from after the after the one individual sikorsky with the the racial and there was no question that the racial statements were made at sikorsky and then he gets the pratt and whitney and he transfers to pratt when he ordered get away from what he perceived to be this abusive behavior and he gets there and all of a sudden there's a string of abusive behaviors i can't i'm going to admit that there wasn't a racial reference when he got to pratt whitney there wasn't but there was a correct accuse you know harassment of almost a persona non grata when he got there and that he already was was labeled in a particular way and at that point it leads to is his is determination and determination based on him not being back in the actual evidence is perfectly good evidence in many cases it's better than an eyewitness testimony but there's got to be some and what's the circumstantial evidence that shows that any and encountered time encountered at pratt and whitney were attributable to race discrimination where we think the circumstantial evidence lies is that it's in it's a continuation of an abusive behavior on somebody that had already been the issue of racial connection at already been connected and so what occurs at united technolog that the final the final step in in causing him to leave the company one way or the other that's when he becomes he starts suffering with his complaints of headaches and illnesses and the like and believing there was an energy source yes well what his interview sources be that's causing him ok and it's and why people doing this to him because of his race or age first of all let me approach it directly and everybody can start on this bench and say this guy must be crazy what's going on i wouldn't say that but he would say that he's complaining of headaches caused by an energy he has and he believed and i think he had the symptoms and he works in a place where there are various instruments using high energy involved that he believed that there was not so you know that not so much that there was a targeting but that it was occurring in that area he then makes the complaints about i don't get it then what does this have to do because he then goes the next step and he makes the complain bias is the core ski supervisors remark that he wasn't going likely to get a promotion because they had no black managers and gets a promotion but he has the concern about whether he salary is on a par with that of other workers but i don't see where there's any evidence that any of the facts that you're now describing about his complaining and how that leads to th should be viewed as a as based on race discrimination that remark by the supervisor because it's a continuation of negative conduct in the party united technologies that that essentially continues to put him in a position that he was put in because of the racial issues and i mean if i can just address the promotion he wasn't promoted he was given the responsibilities of the promotion but he was not given any increase in not only the a salary and not only being just another level up to be get seniority but it was also an issue that they never addressed the salary issue at all so it was congratulations you've been promoted and we're now paying out pointed out the failure to exhaust administrative franny's on that may be correct yes your honor but we believe that continuing conduct and watching my time at united technologies in fact was simply the continued abuse of mr joseph had already suffered from motivated by pervasive racial discrimination but he just had one supervisors remark at six course there was no evidence of anything racial on the part of anyone other than that one supervisor his affidavit does state that he had  that that there were racial statements made in day to day conversations and problems along the way so he did raise that in his affidavit that it various times when he was being where he perceived being disciplined in some way that racially good morning may please the court my name is eric sussman they put me in hartford we represent this of course the impression whitney the plaintiff has laid off from pratt and whitney in august of two thousand and thirteen in a reduction in force after failing to report to work for several months he sued in addition is suing pride with me of course he has sued his prior employer sikorsky and he has no evidence of any race discrimination or age discrimination by either defendant with regard to the continuing violation argument that the plane that the appellant articulate the continuing violation does not save him on the failure of the alleged failure to promote because of no evidence of racial discrimination at sikorsky the only thing that he can point to is he points to the the alleged comment by donald rogers that he wouldn't likely get a promotion that he ultimately got because there weren't any black managers in the department at best he can show that that is evidence of race discrimination at best it's a stray remark your honor and so it's not enough to overcome summary judgment in an effort to overcome the the the problem that he has on the promotion being a discrete act which it is to promote as a failure to increase his pay in two thousand and nine but that too is a discreet act my understanding you want us to affirm with respect to sue course ski on the ground that he fails to state a claim not on the ground that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies in a timely manner well that's what you're arguing to us that he fails to state a claim well we are where are you in your honor that  he doesn't have any evidence to support a continuing violation and so with regard to the he also has this other the hostile work environment claim  we think that the district court properly found that there was no evidence to support us to state a continuing claim because he fails to state a claim op initio is that is that your theory that sir well he made seems like the hardest argument for you to continuing course of conduct and so and so if he doesn't get past the statute of limitations with regard to sikorsky you've been arguing more than that he doesn't have evidence to support a continuing course of conduct you've been arguing i don't know defend in view of the fact that he was told by his supervisor you're not going to get promoted because we don't know do black don't do blacks blacks supervisors you're all we're suggesting is that his claims it's with respect to sikorsky are barred by the statute of limitations and he doesn't have evidence of a continuing course of conduct with regard that's all you're suggesting now so you're retracting the exaggerated overstated argument you were making before that's fine that's what i would do in your position that i didn't i didn't mean to overstate the argument so if that's the way it came across than in my apologies or you're relying on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to scored ski and you're relying on the absence is no evidence of race discrimination and there is no evidence of age discrimination he admits in fact that there is no evidence or facts that is to support that the reason he didn't get the so called promotion  admits that he has no facts or evidence that the reason ms casino didn't promote him to an l four was because of his age and the only evidence that he points to with regard to race is this is what he now  points to is mr rogers alleged statement which which is he which is at best a straight remark mr rogers was not a decision maker is undisputed that mr van leeuwen with the one who made the decision with regard to that position  s claims against pratt and whitney similarly fail because he has no evidence that determination was discriminatory at the q we've we've heard that from mr joseph in his deposition transcript it's in the fifty six we regard to the race claimed he doesn't even claim that the decision makers involved in the layoffs mr lamb burry mr celebrating and mr morford discriminated against him indeed there is no evidence of race discrimination nor does he have any evidence of the plaintiff admits that it wasn't acceptable for him simply to be out of work without approval he has no documentary evidence no e mails nothing of a documentary nature no evidence of any comments or conduct during his employment and whitney to evidence age discrimination he doesn't have any statistical evidence he doesn't have any evidence that similarly situated white coworkers were treated more favorably after failing to work to report to work for months without approval he never complained to anybody at the company about race or age discrimination and any evidence that he has cited computer problems in the accusations that he was a thief or words to that effect lack any nexus to his eventual layoff from pratt and whitney and without a nexus his claim fails as a matter of law what he's really saying is that he hopes that it jury will forgive his lack of evidence and find in his favor but the lack of evidence is precisely what precludes any reasonable jury from drawing a rational inference of race or age discrimination in the first instance his claims of hostile work environment his hostile work environment claims of fail against both defendants also because again there is no evidence of severe or pervasive discriminatory treatment and certainly no evidence of severe or  pervasive discriminatory treatment based on race or based on age the computer problems there is no link between the computer print the village computer problems and his race or his age and indeed the plaintiff admitted it is  twenty one he didn't make any mention whatsoever of race or of age there is an allegation and that mr votary alluded to this in his in his remarks  that that there were race related remarks and it's all it's alluded to in the plaintiff's affidavit he talks about what he alleges a racial epithets he was asked about that in his deposition indeed the record reflects that there were no racial epithets whatsoever what the plaintiff is saying and what the evidence reveals is that mr rogers allegedly called him lazy and slacker that's what he is calling a racial epithet again there is nothing racial about those words on their face nor does the plaintiffs have any evidence that mr rogers or anybody else for that matter made any statements like that because of the plaintiff's race assuming that they were made at all there's also this allegation about the energy beam again there's no allegation that that happened at all and certainly no evidence that was connected with any on lawful harassment  even if there were severe or pervasive discriminatory treatment the it which we don't think that there was a hostile work environment claim fails for the additional reason that there's no basis to impute liability  in looking at this case the line in which we think creates liability for us and why i think we should have survived in summary judgment is the continuous activity exception and let me actually let me tell you him that because of his race because he's black there are no black managers there and his suggestion a suggestion a comment was is you're not going to get past that ceiling in some way and that happened that is in the it is in the evidence there is evidence of that mr joseph doesn't give up mr joseph goes and he fights it and he's a gets this so called promotion nine ten months later where he's not really promoted he just gets some more more duties to perform one can even say that mr joseph may have caused some trouble he rattled he rattled the gauges a little bit to try to see where he can get and he was trying hard to do it as a decent man a hard working guy he then runs into more and more difficulty with the supervisors he's dealing with and then ultimately goes over to pratt and whitney another branch of unite acknowledges and then faces very difficult situation where he's called a thief and he has these problems does it arise from mr joseph being maybe fighting back against the system or does it arise because it's a continuation of the conduct that occurred it's a course to he was marked at some point our position is when he gets  technology he's trying to make a life form south he at that point didn't care that he didn't have a promotion or on summary judgment certainly if you and the person who you know made trouble for him and pratt and whitney had had communications with the person who dealt with him it's of course ski were some other link we might be entertaining this argument but as i to look at five miles or something but you can't just come in here and ask us to assume that the people of pratt and whitney knew that he had cost trouble it's a course ski without any evidence what we have to circumstantially what occurred at pratt when he one is not going to get i mean in a rare case are you going to get admissions from somebody saying by the way i called up and let's let's do mr joseph in is not going to we're not going to reach that level of evidence in most of these cases that is circumstantial but he does get there and in a surprising way has a number of accusatory type problems occur where he's being accused of being dishonest he loses for example his security clearance which was key to his job because he worked in the defense industry because he worked on on helicopters for sikorsky and jet engines for pratt and whitney all in the software that controls it so he became for example much less employ a whole because he can no longer get a job where he expected to be working so i think circumstantially it does connect and i think it's the continuous conduct exception that carries it thank you right thank you your honour's decision thank you