of this pull in there in this time period drawing her into his office with promises of permanent employment and that he also won office kept her there under the guise of discussing office business he would discuss there were people working class five personnel folks that work and purchased seem folks that work in skill development in other areas and work there for a group alone time and some as long as thirty years had worked there and did not know about t out her specifically so when she started working for the school board was she a temporary worker a full time employee or employee she worked a blue she worked full time but she was what they classified as a temporary employee someone that might work there for a couple days someone might work there a couple weeks someone a must look there are a few a few months as miss poland issue worked there from february school board that's correct even before she worked at the central office she had been a subsequent teach you the temporary worker if orning to your understanding of the record did she receive any sort of training from the school board other than how to do the job to which she was the sign now the words did she have any instruction or orientation on the school board policies scoob or code of conduct or dress code or anything indicated temporary employees the only way they get to know about the sexual harassment policy is you have to go look at the bulletin board but yet temporary employees are not even told that the policy is if it you seems to come down to this bulletin board and the e e o c enforcement guidance says other measures to ensure and affective dissemination of the policy and complain procedure include posting them in central locations why isn't under e e o c guidance why isn't posting it in a bulletin board the minder standing is was right when you walked into this administration building why isn't that sufficient dissemination include posting in a central location and also incorporating them into the story and books well here's one reason i always say bulls and boards just by themselves is not enough in this case  pullen believed the bulletin board all it had on it were job postings and at least one of the bulletin boards used here was ink tasting glass the paul season eight page policy and as far as we know it was all dispute that but i don't think an employee's going to feel comfortable opening a bull's inboard glass and start going through documents or post in this or in charge of the bulletin board and that's commonly where most workplaces i've been in bulletin boards are commonly where these legal notices are put in the most common probably being f l s a wage an hour stuff is always on the break room bulletin boards understand what i can say is that every disseminated to lead most people of ordinary diligence to see the policy isn't that the task well one of the school district reasonably disseminated it whether she actually at the end of the day saw yes well we say it is of course an employer has an active obligation to exercise reasonable care it's not a passive obligation where they can sit back and do very little and depend on the employee need to explore and fun things it's more up to the employer to take an active role the work can be reasonably assured that the employee has at least been exposed to the policy testified that she received frequent sexual harassment training timothy graham testified that he had received outside training that covered harassment in the workplace and this a good point you are cherie foreman did receive training before she got into the purchasing department when she landed foot in a purchasing department sitting get that training and timothy graham he received some outside training in harassment i specifically asked him to receive any training in a school board sexual harassment policy the answer was no have you ever received a copy of the paulson mr supervisor mr director no he had not so there and this is shown when you have an inconsistent training and consistent dissemination of the policy you get inconsistent results as are as in this situation m person to receive the harassment complaint in this case there's no evidence that any of the policies that were put on bulletin board had that person's name on there and the policies that the school board has produced in this case does not have a name on it as a person to whom to report the policy also requires training of all employees of course the the obligation of the employer to take reasonable care is an obligation to all employees as not just to the permanent full time employees but as to any employee employed by the school board policy evans as an employee is a very broad client's supervisor then there would not be strict liability a possibility of strict liability and we have to determine whether the school board knew this harassment or was negligent not no right is he is a supervisor because the harassment he did after the first period i'm not i'm not asking about that idea for make sure we're on the same ground about the distinction used by the district judge between when he was the supervisor formally and when he was not the supervisor formally i know you're claiming that the supervisor relationship extended the entire time she worked there because he would track her from place to place but assuming he that he was a supervisor or that the coworker stanzel that the plot and i think still those those negligent standards apply here for the very same reasons why the policy was never disseminated  please the court there are two legal issues that i'd like to address and twenty minutes to have before the panel the first legal issue is can an employer such as the cattle pair school board who someone who's an employer who has implemented a detailed sexual harassment seek posted that policy throughout the workplace that this particular plaintiff worked and it was given educational programs to a vast majority of its close to six thousand employees in the system can supposed to do in that switch your is only one the record ever shows there is only one of the three specific bulletin boards that are in the record that had a sliding glass that you could just put your fingers in and slide open that particular policy on the front cover specifically said sexual harassment indicated that it was in multi page document you could actually see the staple on that even if that employee did not notice that that glass case could be slid open certainly by just seen that inside that glass door if she felt she was truly being sexually harassed a number the burden would have been to go to the h r department asked to see a copy of that policy who whom would the person contact a person who felt harassed or who felt someone else was being harassed flip through that policy where they find a name or room number a phone number where they see in that particular policy that was posted since we're not talking about a school site we're talking about central office building the policy itself just said you know the person the highest level person in that would be an appropriate person to go do i think it's important to know i'd say that again more specifically the you talk to it would say the highest person at that site in this particular site was the center office the superintendent's office was that location the assistant superintendent who was actually in charge when we didn't say that he just had the highest person yes that's correct in obviously miss poland actually worked in the h r department the director of classified personnel who would have been her boss when she worked in the h r department was obviously an appropriate person i think it's also important to keep in mind cattle pair school boards policies that those aren't the only people in this mechanism is the only mechanism you need in order to report that there were other mechanisms in place including its grievance policy so this is not a policy that said you had to report to one specific individual and we're certainly not taking the position in this case that if you didn't complain to that specific individual you were not reasonable there were multiple people that could have received complaints the school board trained the supervisors and principals what they're supposed to do when they receive a complaint they get at actually develop forms that they gave including the forms that they gave to mr woolfolk who is the chief operations officer who is the person that was assigned to investigate the amy harris complaint when that was first brought to the attention of in the record as to why the school board did not give some sort of orientation or training to the plaintiff when she began working as a temporary worker this is there i don't think there's anything in the records no one no one on either side on ask so i will just live on the law monologue we are talking about actually a small subset of employees they are the substitute actually makes your position worse so what what is in the record as to why these the small cadre you call him that worked in the administration building or wherever they were not given some sort of orientation on sexual harassment and other workplace problems there is nothing in the record that actually goes to why you could not you didn't provide any record evidence in the other side and i ask this is this is a point that we've never taken the position that in this poll in the other substitute employees at the central office location did receive training specifically on that policy i understand my question was why whether that's not in the record i think if you would ask me i ask you did anyone ask why and you tell me no no one you didn't you did i wouldn't reason and the other side just didn't ask it that was not a question that was addressed however we have to remember that these are substitute employees they are not long term a ploy is there if you look at this poll and see your argument then makes its way well they're just ripe for sexual harassment i don't think you want to make that argument you know but i don't think of the law requires an employer to have to train every single employee on its policy there are many employers including in the cases that we see from the circuit where the employer will only train the supervisory level employees unless we're going to give a temporary employee a copy of that workplace policy about sexual harassment how difficult is that well in the policy manual is eight hundred eighty eight pages i guess they could give some sort of acknowledged form that says hey you've been advised that you've gotten a copy of this policy that you've read would sign that i did receive it and that certainly would be something if this case were to come back before this panel and we were looking at another substitute player though in the same circumstances in the school board to not do anything between now and then  to maybe change their policies maybe we have a different question than maybe the school boards actions and whether they would meet the first prong of the l a fair case in that case would be a different question were here on her own cross motion for summary judgment why isn't the answer to this case at least on the berger prayer good test that there was a genuine dispute a material fact a genuine disabused material also as to whether you can you can see here from a group of fans that the person didn't take the steps the person should have taken to prevent those around them because i think yes they do not get they were not personally handed a copy of the policy they were not told hey we have the policy posted on the bulletin board but certainly the school board did many other things that i think in this case if you are look at it a spectrum of zero being completely unreasonable one hundred being reasonable i think the school boards is above ninety in terms of all the other steps that they took considering that they have close to six thousand employees but going to judge birch is question though about whether there are genuine factual issues here or there is evidence in the summary judgment records such as joyce clement who spent about thirty years at the central office said that she had never been given any information or training about sexual harassment whether or not you agree to fetch true the question is do does evidence like that and there's some more from mary russell and some others indicate that there is at least a dispute about those facts i don't there's not dispute about the fact as to whether they were given training you know we acknowledge and we've never taken the position that no these substitute clericals at central office did not get training they were not specifically told  yourself of the defense it's are you entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the defense if we were to reverse you'd be able to argue in front of the jury you bike would be able to get a jury instruction on this defense that's common in these cases and that's where your brief frame the issue it's not if if the case is reversed you're not being deprived of the defense so that in it's an affirmative defense on which you have the burden of proof which is a much more difficult situation in which to get summary judgment then the typical case would defend is just trying to say the plaintiffs produce no evidence and i'll go over the facts a minute but i want to address to the question i don't believe that a reasonable juror with all the facts and i'll go through the factors and in a minute can find that which found it was an armband decision by this court that said when you look at all the factors as to what the bow brothers company did in that case that was not reasonable and they cannot avail itself of the all of their good friends in the bow brothers case they law they had this post this policy posted throughout the central office a location which the e e o c has recognized in its own guidance is it considered to be an effective means of dissemination and see anything in the record that would show photographs of what these bulletin board looked like or even a floor plan that would show where they were is is there anything you can point us to in the records the documentary nash robinson affidavit into somebody you know actual photos for us to actually  it's much better to have the photos and to have someone describe there is not a photo of it in that in the particular record the policy was posted throughout the central office building clothing by the cafeteria where all the central office employees includes you so i threw out you're talking about three and she did that frequently again this was my question about photos of the bulletin board how was it on the website was it on the home page where you automatically see it that did you have to click on something i didn't see any detail that would really would not have been on the home i understand has  it on the home page would have had to do a word search or in that it would have come up and again that would have been the same for all the other various policies in the eight hundred eighty eight page manual that the school board had they also had paper copies of this policy available in various department departments were there in the same building that newspoll and worked at the school board in addition to the policy had created forms to give to people who were the complaint receivers they did that when amy harris who is a substitute clerical just like can candace poland's and not the mother the grandmother of candace pullens baby son who had just been born a few months before that prompted her to go to her boss the cleveland white who's the personnel director for the classified personnel and that's what started investigation and that's how the school board learned that not only had tim graham apparently been saying some of these things to miss harris but he had been saying it to several others too and they promptly investigated that and they took corrective action he worked there before this happened before she went to this family friend or was there were two periods of time that she worked in purchasing department under mr grant was one was from february to june two thousand a lot of it and then she stopped working somebody before he's able to hire permanent somebody for the permanent slot of the buyer system position so she came back approximately six weeks after the birth of her baby which would have been in february of two thousand and twelve and then work in that department until the end cleveland whites the director about classified personnel for about thirty days and then she stopped working until about september of up to over and then she was reassigned to work at it outside where she was when the plant you told us about where she w and i don't like the way he's talking how long she worked there before that happened it would have been she kind of harassment was going to february to june two thousand and eleven period in the february to may suit and also i'm sorry i'm not being very clear when you've told us about her finally going in complaining to someone ok when did that happen that happened and she did not complain amy harris it complained in two thousand and thirteen ok song miss paula never complained miss paula never complained right now the only reason we found out about  ms pooling is because amy harris in her complaint to the school board said she thinks that there have been a couple other people and she had in a fight ms polling and two other people as people who she believes it also experience this in that suit a school board and that's how we found in addition going back to the question about you know is there a fact is you are not in this case out of fact issue a genuine dispute of material material fact the school board provided annual training to all of  supervisor employees including they gave trying to mr graham or mr cameron's to say a few minutes ago that it wasn't specifically on the policy but mr grant was very clear in his deposition testimony that he was required to attend these franklin covey sessions that included several one hour sessions on harassment in the workplace so again this is not an employer that just has a policy or a generic policy in doesn't take many steps to implement that  policy yes they are not one hundred percent perfect and obviously this case is indicated that there is a gap in terms of the training or maybe some other things the school board can do but the question is in for summary judgment purses purposes find out if they had a policy she just turned a blind eye do we have to go out in a firmly tell that person hey did we have a policy or hey this policy is on the bulletin board you need to go look at it i think title seven i think the supreme court in this court have made clear that one of the purposes of the l a fair defense is not just to put all the burden on the employer obviously it is meant to encourage the employer to take steps  of before you know we can say that they're not entitled to that defense in this case when you look at all the things that the caterpillar school board did in this case yes it was not one hundred percent that they were not reasonable or that they did not implement or take steps to implement a suitable program and to take reasonable measures discriminator conduct and we don't believe that any reasonable juror like judge foo a substitute employed like miss poland do policy had to do even if we didn't tell her we had a policy but we certainly had a post she could have best anyone in management it is the kind of pair school board have a sexual harassment policy  she could have gone out when she was going to the bulletin boards for the job announcement postings this is all it would have taken to see if they had a sexual harassment policy that's not a lot of effort if she could have gone to her mother in law or her grandmother the mother first son to ask do we have a policy her dad worked in the security department she made a conscious choice not to tell him because she said she was afraid her dad was going to kill m that's a conscious choice to stop because she wasn't aware of the policy that she had multiple avenues to beautiful your again your own summary judgment these are great maybe great questions for a jury you could make an argument to a jury but i don't think it had a whole lot of weight here along trying to uphold a summary judgment i just think when you look at all the evidence that if you ask her and her deposition why don't you go tell your father yes and she said because he said i was braided killing she said my dad i didn't want my daddy to kill i specifically asked her enter deposition why didn't she tell anyone about what he was doing because she did not even tell him miss and that dumb lack of specifics all she said was i'm not i don't like working for mr graham and she said i do not want to cause any drama that's maybe why there was a dinner and disputed material fact but she still she didn't make any other effort to find out if there was a policy and i think when you look at all the facts and notice my time is out i just don't believe that a rational reasonable to the bulletin board they can buy it and they can see a policy up there and that's how they get to find out about it that's the us that's the policy i mean and that's all consistent with the evidence  of the water that's up to the employee but the employer has to take the m employees take employee there first though this policy is eight pages long it may be the most thorough that  seen but it's eight pages long for a reason why appliances students it applies to teachers in applies to employees it applies to multiple locations as so long policy it may be something that someone doesn't read all the way through i think the who you report to is in section five of support the as they sit person in charge of each site is responsible for receiving oral or written reports the person in charge of each side who is that person i think the things one say was best the superintendent was conspicuous posting is satisfied at least if it's was prominently displayed right next to where you enter the cafeteria that sounds to me like a pretty reasonable way of rewarding people conspicuously it is  if you know that that is something that were important company policies were posted and that was something to you know were a sexual harassment also supposed to be out of the company pritchett right beside where you go into the cafeteria it seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude from that that the company wants you to see it i'm just i'm just talking about that narrow fact that doesn't decide your whole case but i understand what you're saying yes it is there's a point of thought about  does it actually give the person opportunity to review the policy is is something along the lines of in a employment case if a if you have a failure in the case and the person doesn't know about the is not told it only policy on the baltimore there are important company policies what she knew was that this is a place where i can look at for jobs while want to get a job and seen job postings up there but otherwise she doesn't know what else must be up there might be some by still a barbecue pit or it could be almost anything in the in the again i want to know what's in the summary judgment record she categorically denies having seen the sexual harassment policy bulletin board because he's never seen it before though did so the other side didn't ask her in her deposition now what about the policy that was posted on the slide by on the sliding glass door did you see it did they go down one two three for each of the three