ignored many facts the district court main inferences and made credibility determinations had the district court taken all the facts in the light most favorable mr hardage summary judgment would not have been granted and it's our position that taking  job detriment in this case is a combination of three things it is the hostile work environment it is the disciplinary notice that he was provided right before he quit and it's the constructive discharge itself in for general purpose general motors granted it was the sixth case from two thousand the court held that those three factors a hostile work environment and unwarranted discipline and a construct discharged could together be viewed as a tangible job detriment everything that happened here i want to talk to you it was a meeting where mr hawkins testified initially there was five to ten minutes of chit chat about the weather and then he said well mr hartley what can i do for you did falcon did it you're g a tangible employment action then we don't get into the separate affirmative defense correct and we only get to the arguments your feeling if there is a tangible employment action that takes a different process now one you've cited a six circuit case indicating that there can be a tangible employment action based upon sexual harassment but i want to c tangible employment action your honor i really don't concede that there is not tangible detriment the reason i started getting into the affirmative defense is because even if there wasn't as a matter of law we contend that c b s should not be entitled to utilize the affirmative defense but getting back to your question in months terro the plaintiffs did not resign in till after her supervisor had been fired and another individual who was sexually harassed or had b start from a sexual standpoint but that's when the other type of harassment started and the court can simply ignore all of that testimony about what happened in between when the told other people that she was the black widow and if she could f e m and fire him which he learned about which goes to his state of mind as to whether she reasonably believed he had no other options than to quit she told him your numbers  people including a number raster didn't find sexual harassment but still trained the entire workforce and went over the sexual harassment policy with the harasser told the harasser that some of his voicemail messages although they weren't sexual in nature were inappropriate something that in his words were arguably sexual harassment if you would do an investigation he would meet with the harasser he would speak with all the parties he or she did not even deign to tell this part that she was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint he that he was very nervous that he cried himself and being able to handle business matters on his own all led to this situation where mr foxman suggestion that mr hardage handle it on his own is one that he took him up on because mr harvey quit and she claims that he quit because it was really a constructive destruct the suitor's case which was decided after this case was brief but before argument and we've both submitted letters on this issue of the supers case estab that sometimes a constructive discharge will deprive the employer of the opportunity to use the decision and sometimes it will not those cases in which suitors does prevent the employer from using the constructive discharge must show that there was a tangible job detriment as part of the constructive discharge the harasser has to have done something like a demotion of terminations transfer or reduction in job responsibilities something tangible that converts an otherwise harassment case construct a discharge into a tangible job action plan to simply cannot meet the burden of showing either that there was a tangible job action or that he was constructively discharged the for the record before the district circuit case this twenty vs west case that even if you have threats of discipline if things don't improve that doesn't constitute a tangible job action and in this case mr hardy's had netted two important things one that the performance issues that were being addressed in that memorandum were true and that his co manager needs to offer and also receive the very same kind of counseling meetings and memoranda and two he admitted he was insubordinate he did not do specifically what he had been told to do which is to return to work after a particular sales function because of these problems they needed to make sure that he admitted that that was true it's hard to see how any trial judge could think in the records that that document creates job action that is connected with the alleged harassment which is required in the cases under those circumstances so in our view one it doesn't doesn't rise to the level of a tangible job action because nothing bad happened to him he was simply warned that he needed to just you know just leave it or get it over with as part of a joking relationship that turned in part on the start of his admitted flirtatious relationship with this is what you're saying is that we can accept this is counseling that's coming from your coworkers and subordinates his sex life was a common topic of conversation and joking at work that's at the record a six thirty eight thirty three eighty seven ninety six he said his deposition his relationship with kathy sparks was characterized by playful is this harassment in essence and harvey says no no no it's nothing like that at least not yet all it is now is she's got feelings for me i'm not sure what to do about it and then he says ok people at work sometimes have feelings for each other we got a couple  ways we can deal with it i can ride in on my horse and solve the problem you can just ignore it but i don't advise that but this in these situations things usually don't just go away by themselves or you can say something to kathy yourself first he chooses does the company is supposed to do an employee comes to you insist that a problem with my manager i'm feeling uncomfortable tell me about the problem well i don't really like the way the manager is treated well if you feel it's discriminatory and harassing is a problem no no complaint to sexual harassment was made and it simply wasn't he raised the concern about mr parks but don't deny harassment following a complaint as their investigation was made by interviewing the individuals allegedly responsible for the harassment and any witness and after if you take a look at the testimony that he gave about the kings the restaurant let me say it in light of them in light of this policy was not a reasonable thing christie b s to do i think it was your honor because mr hart is the one who has all the information and he misled everybody about what he said he was complaining about he told he told katie dean that he was uncomfortable by some things that she had done a dinner he told mr reduce nothing and he firman of lee told mr  that he was not talking about harassment and did not want the company to get involved at this point it was just his feeling a little unconscious and he tells fight at the kingfish restaurant five months later when he felt that someone might have that he had raised the concern about her he says i felt like my trust had possibly been violated by corporate and leaking information because i stated i wanted to handle the case on my own let's see that's an april of two thousand  s policy because of what your response to your going my response is that the record in front of the district court shows that mr hart age had a friendly loose casual and sometimes sex  chance that background i submit the district judge appropriately found there was no question of fact about whether the screen knew that mr hardage was uncomfortable or knew that mr hardage felt harassed she may have seen the banter closing all of the plane just cases in the entire analysis turns on the assumption that what mr hardy did was complain about sexual harassment every one of the cases turns on and the entire argument and it's our position that if the court looks at the record reads the testimony from mr felt calm which is perfectly consistent with the testimony of mr hardy he had ample opportunity to raise his concerns with mr falcon in the company and he never did when he was asked he engaged in banter with coworkers totally separate and we also have a court order for having that kind of evidence from coming in a trial so it's a completely different situation the fact that padding the dean viewed it as one that she didn't need to act upon because of her assumptions about