and circumstantial evidence of the extreme racial discrimination gender based discrimination and discrimination based on union affiliation and it's gone on since one thousand nine hundred five under the same manager appellant's complained to seattle management this juneau station was directly overseen by seattle management and their grievances were first ignored and then withdrawn in a an agreement with the district union which is separate from the local union in alaska sum treatment of the evidence and pattern in practice type discussion of the evidence or a treatment of the entire work environment as impacting each one of these plaintiffs but that was this was a smaller place there are several errors with respect to the trial but well what's it like as you understand it what is the critical district court holding critical holdings i guess there are there are several one the statute of limitations one was railway labor act exclusion which the law does not support one was that you couldn't establish a continuing violation based on this evidence to get the evidence over the statute of limitations and one was that there was rescued by the district i am conduct and wiping out supposedly wiping out these same issues which but i think judge last night did not see that the plaintiff did not have to be the target of each piece of evidence in order for that evidence to create a hostile work environment around them i think that he did not  this was an extremely difficult case for  apparently from the judge lies makes comments he felt that counsel rather than presenting legitimate needs for expansions of time based on extreme portion of this record to know that that lawyer that judge leslie exposed about for twenty five years has been able to stand up against the largest depend e and within truth when he said that it was council's obligation to create any equality of resources in order to take on an alaska airlines well placed can never do that but the playing field is not level and in this case perhaps the football analogy of piling on is appropriate here i'm tired is not pile on after the inappropriate which just wasn't denied after finally requiring them to come up with some discovery as to what time they were claiming and what it was spent on and he found that for example with the e e o c filing which you originally had thought was inappropriate and must have cost a lot of money to respond to that it in fact asked no money to respond to because the e e o c allegation completely overlaps the allegations that went forward in that he found did have a debatable marriage with the files you're talking about the defendant alleged and the only area where a judge last night found that we never pursued a claim under the federal aid da it was under the basis for subject matters direction of the court we don't think there was subject matter jurisdiction your honor and we've said that in the briefing originally it was removed based on the fact that we had mentioned title discovery just last week has found with respect to the decision about charging fees for the clients not charging them any which she did not that there was no cost to alaska airlines are mentioning the like that my recollection is that it was brought out but i can't cite you to the record your honor i don't see that three we mention only in the jurisdictional statement that we have never agreed that there was a subject matter jurisdiction that and the citations are in the jew ever asked her for  this point i cannot cite you to the record about my recollection is that we do know that would have been our pattern but i cannot i can't cite you for the record on that well ok that's not very helpful i mean most complaints that say that we're complaining about preserved in history or either i believe that it has been in the free things but i can again that's not what i prepared to talk about today and what complaint as opposed to understand well if you take a look at the complaint and i don't have it before me but it's in our supplemental exercise record and i believe that the original complaint and the amended complaint are both at the so i've never understood this appeal to really be based on the jurisdictional issue and i'd like to address some of the other issues if i may mr mann has repeated to you her general allegations that she's made throughout this case about a broad array of conduct that the plaintiffs claim constituted discrimination retaliation and wrongful discharge based on things like gender waste and union status but miss manners arguments are not evidence and they can't make up for the fact that the plaintiffs did not defend their claims and did not great length what they believed to be the claims as much as they could tell from this man's pleadings for each plaintiffs they set forth the law on those planes the required elements and the undisputed facts which were based on the nothing to point out the specific evidence that they believe supported those claims instead they could in one three satchel statements again this man's arguments essentially saying that they have been wrong but try to leaf through all those pages and find what it might need to support her statements this man refused to do that she was given an opportunity to add the citations but she did not and she did that again and again and in her succeeding motions mr mann has tried to make an argument today problem was that she didn't have enough time well she made in motion for more time on the first couple of motions for summary judgment she has not properly appealed that the denial of that motion here she's not shown she did file factual statements but she provided effectively no legal support and no one now asked us of how the fact that she alleged supported the claims of that particular pla to some kind of adverse action that they were doing their work properly and that there was a person of not in a protected status that was treated differently as we showed each of the individuals who she says were subjected to some kind of racial discrimination actions that they complained of occurred all of them well that basically what it was or what were the grounds well there were there were not well different yeah yeah there was one motion for each plaintiff and their extensive because the complaint had ten causes of action analysis of that and that was for each plaintiffs there were if there was either a race discrimination claim or a gender discrimination claim the motions went to the full analysis and pointed out the lack of supplemental i'm sure we have our motion the supplemental excerpts read i don't know where he is offhand but what alaska said is we have spent approximately i think it was five hundred thousand i'm not i don't remember the exact for the fees it had expanded to respond to mr man's motion for extra time on which the court had earlier awarded sanctions another was it wasn't asking to double dip  we did not include that in our record because in this man's opening brief on a sanction she did not refer to anything that would have required us to produce that but the two issues that the court found through sort of general there was no support for those claims and the court's order cited a number of those issues that title seven claims the claim of mr jenkins for disability a failure to accommodate mr jenkins only deposition testimony stablished that he had no medical need for accommodation he never asked for accommodation and he was never prevented from working because of his asthma which was his alleged disability this man simply ignored that evidence and proceeded to argue his disability claim and the court found that was improper the court also found that a number of the claims for retaliation for having opposed discrimination was discrimination or health and safety issues had no but the order that she's referring to is the district court's order on the plaintiffs on the request for a fee against the plaintiffs and the court ultimately clip concluded that the only basis for that's not applicable to the fees against in this man because in the case of this man the court was looking at a whole set of conduct that curt occurred throughout the action the pursuit of claims that were and then the second category that i didn't mention is engaging in litigation tactics that have secured the nature of the claims and made it more difficult for alaska to get rid of them and that included things like in her conservative estimate of the extra work that alaska had to go through as a result of this man's conduct and i believe if you take a look at the appeal it really just  ganns method has continued through the appeal she continued to provide many factual statements with no citations she continue to fight to hold judge well as nick ruled on the sanctions motion refusing council's request for more detailed information about the attorneys  on the employee on the client the plaintiff's sanctions went ahead and granted that and went into further proceedings he denied counsel a separate amount of time for responding to the fee claim against counsel which was for five hundred thousand dollars or what part of that the court would award while counsel was having to spend time defending the client defend herself that was not granted no extension of time and so the content of counsel's response on her behalf is in the motion for reconsideration which w of by the court saying well there's nothing here that council could not have submitted in the first place but that was a grossly unfair treatment fees and being able to submit information there was a conflict of interest there that that put counsel in an untenable position claim the deposition testimony called into question the plaintiffs and asked the court to require alaska to provide the deposition transcripts so that counter goes ignatius could be made if you go to against the other clients it's a hostile work environment claim the conduct doesn't have to be targeted against you for you to be impacted by it the retaliation if it chills your right actionable also potentially by you so that that was the theory that judge lastic did not see when he ordered us to separate out what was specific targeted at each person we did that but we certainly didn't have an  the information about each about each plaintiff is supported by the record that we gave even though it was i was in a trial and my staff was transferred from one work group to another she was then terminated on basis which she alleges was unfair in that it was alleged that she didn't ask for training but she had a letter from her supervisor saying she was she was threatened that she would be terminated on the spot if you brought chris monocle a union rep to a meeting with her and she was terminated she filed eight applications to get back into alaska airlines after that and was told by an alaska airlines manager she was banned for life from alaska airlines there were comments in the workplace supported by other workers that were racial slurs against filipinos that were reported to management and not acted on there is a similar case right in the ellis was a union president from one nine hundred ninety nine to two thousand and one well within the statute of limitations he had twelve confrontations with him as mcafee about race discrimination and he wrote to the company in seattle about race