claim proving it in the th amendment sovereign immunity employer liability the supreme court's ruled the employers presume libel in cases where the harassment has been perpetrated by the victim supervisor in my case when i was working in the  evidence in which the solicitor general immediately filed a motion to have it denied the damage that had been kept by division of human rights proves that the claim i had made to the e e o c when i submitted my letter requesting  right to sue and the letter i had stated that the director of human resources and that francine e had come out of her office boasting to the labor relations office that she had gone to human rights that day to speak with them and they agreed to close the case she said it's finally over and there's nothing more to worry about i'm glad the case is closed on aug th and submitted a foil request and aug th of two thousand and eighteen i had submitted a foil request to division of human rights i wanted electronic copy which they refused to give me they told me that the case file was too big and i could only get a paper copy of it but in the case in the log it showed that there some anation had not been submitted until january th now how would i have been able to put the january th notice to the e e o c stating that annette had made that comment if in fact i wasn't aware of it because they what she did was she had gone over on  day on january th and that was the day that they were allowed to finally submit their paperwork because in the law get shows that it was due as of december nd and then education  notified division of human rights informing them that they were unable to get it to them they asked for an extension they were given the extension until december th and there was nothing in the law of showing that they did submit a time even you know that the  new york has a law called election of remedies that says that if you have gone to the state department of human resources to get your grievance heard and adjudicated that you cannot thereafter take the same complaint to the courts are you familiar with or without your honor but you see the whole problem started in the human resource office that's where the whole case started the promotion was in the human resource office and i was the one i was already doing all the duties as a grade fourteen and they ended up promoting someone else who scored lower on the exam the knighted who had absolutely no  knowledge of the job duties had never done any of the work before and since then right now they have hired another employee who with it was not on the list at all to be promoted but you did file a grievance with the department of human rights and they've they found that there is no probable cause to go forward that makes it under the new york law means you can't pursue the same claim in the state and federal courts they require you to go to the administrative agency to adjudicate those claims or to go to courts can't do both ok you're out of the thing with for the division of human rights of the case i was never granted a hearing i was never granted turns to get up to speak we went into i went to the hearing to talk and when we had the time to talk to the investigator i was there but education was allowed to stay at their office and when we went in to when the when it was just taking place they assume that they were all going to be allowed to stay in this one office while the investigator was questioning them and they  arguing with her insisting that there was no other rooms to go to because they had been that they had fabricated the entire thing where they were being given notes to read from and over again over and over again the investigator had told them to put their notes down but yet she would just pick them right back up and start reading it to them and the investigators notes that were in the foil request that i received the st ten minutes of it that was missing and then nowhere in the notes does it say that she had been telling them to put their notes down and was no hearing but was there a ruling issued by the new york think division of human rights human rights as i said i was allowed to speak with the investigator and that's  but that's as far as it went it didn't go any further but that was because education and effort seanie had gone over and that's when she came back on january th posting that the case was closed and that i couldn't do anything about it because they had gone over and influenced and after they influenced the court was there a decision that's when they that's when i got the notice saying that the case was no probable cause and that's why it's not my letter to the e e o c and i feel the reason the e e o c didn't give me a notice of right to sue was because of my stating in there that i i wasn't given a chance to get up and prove a fair hearing from what showed  law they were allowed over and over again to submit more evidence but i was never asked to permit ask for any more evidence q ok thank you you have two minutes of free bottle here from  good afternoon your honors jennifer clark on behalf of the new york state education department plaintiff's claims in this matter are barred by the th amendment as this court has previously recognized s e d is an arm of new york state and this court and the supreme court have recognized that the eighty eight a do not abrogate seats th amendment immunity to the extent that this court reads state law claims brought under the new york state human rights law into plaintiff's complaint to plaintiff's claims only this court may consider th amendment immunity at any point and i would ask the court to add that reason to the reasons that we additionally put in our brief as to why plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed below unless the court has additional questions about the reasons that we discussed in our brief i would rely on our our briefing and asked this court to courts to me if you have any comments about this black roots  complaints about the fairness or lack of fairness in the proceedings of the department of human rights your honor i certainly hope that that was not the case there is not sufficient information on the record before the district court but what i would note is that while you honor is correct that the election of remedies provision says that you can't pursue a plenary action to these extent that ms bleicher felt that the proceeding was arbitrary or capricious she had the opportunity to pursue an article seventy eight in new york state courts and she could have raised those arguments there but she did not do so i understood her to say that a right to sue letter was issued for mislike it also presented her claims to the e e o c obviously those claims are your honor i feel my case needs to go to a hearing so that the employees at s c d who are involved can be questioned a court of law rather than give the pretext notes by s u d council is individuals should be able to testify in court without the possibility of being influenced by honor under constitutional limitations i don't have that one in front of me but if i could please finish just reading sorry but i have to say under new york state consolidated law civil service law c v s one of six it is a misdemeanor to obstruct civil service rights and the commissioner or examiner any other person who shall willfully meter a cd is supposed to abide by the new york state consolidated laws civil service laws but instead there is a constant abuse of power and which the laws are taken into their own hands the problem needs to be addressed by the attorney general's office i'm not the only employee in s e d who has had to deal with a title seven discrimination every telly ation or the only person who has been banned from the building bullied and harassed i was denied a fair hearing at division of human rights and then denied a fair hearing by the northern district court but with all the evidence i feel that my case should not be diminished dismissed and that i should be granted an appeal i know i'm well aware of what sovereign immunity is but i am not the only employee who as i said goes through has gone through this other employees will not speak out because if they do speak up they either will be fired or the bullying harassment just does not stop so i would appreciate if the court would consider granting an appeal or think they could consider going back to the lower court to division of human rights where i would be granted a fair hearing and everything would be brought out into the open because as i said francine he boasted that she beat me that she did in fact go  over and talk to them she praised one of the other employees in the office william harris for doing so great job writing the report everything i have a lot of i was keeping a log of everything that was going on every day and office as well as a lot of what happened that day and the investigators when we were with meeting with the investigators when they were arguing with or as far as we can't go into another office there's no other office there was another office that they went to and they finally did go into the other office and they were just constantly handed notes over and over again because they was nothing but locks thank you very much i think we have the arguments will reserve decision and that concludes our argument calendar today that quickly please adjourn court