whether a continuing a violation exist employer who fails to ensure that the investigation into the appellant's complaints are done unbiasedly and where the appellant is continually partnered with a coworker who has perpetrated  sexual harassment in which instance to the lawyer of failing to take measures to correct conditions that came to the employer's att initially this particular appellate had gone to trial in two thousand and ten and that particular case was the result of a multi plaintiff case of which the appellant was the last man standing and in that case the jury came back with a verdict that he was last wednesday because others had settled in because others had a falling out summary judgment had done i think over time various plaintiffs in that case due to attrition some had left the department i think one of them had passed away of the department and they didn't have anybody to go for work these cases we were these cases were handled by variety but attorneys so you had the initial attorney that brought the complaint and the middle of the case you had that attorney leave and they got a second attorney that second attorney ended up leaving and so these plaintiffs were left without counsel and what was the nature of mr  what i mean your honor in the complaint by the appellant you have the physical touching by sergeant b that occurred in two thousand and eleven and then you had a subsequent maybe about seven or eight months later maybe not that long maybe about three or four months later you have another touching by the same supervisor and then you have an act that occurs may be about eighteen months later so that's what formed his e complaint however or to the two thousand and eleven incident that started this off the appellate had been sexually harassed by others who were still in the same unit for which the employer and attempting to investigate did nothing for those and when he brought these complaints didn't do anything concerning these so that fact that these were these acts were part of a continuing violation so that they had roles to the level of being a practice in a custom and that part of the harassment policy stated that where an investigation is going to be done the professional standards unit is supposed to do that in this situation the professional standards unit didn't do any of the investigations it was reverted back to the actual unit while all of these events were going on so appellate made his initial complaint to the sergeant who harassed him and then went to fellow sergeants to say this is what happened to me those sergeants then said there's nothing we can do because this person is of equal rank he went then and spoke to the unit commander who was a lieutenant that tenet only told and i'm going to keep my eye on this person but didn't call over to the professional standards unit to say there needs to be an investigation and i have  mean why would that one would that constitute an active discrimination for harassment i think what my what i don't i don't i just don't understand right and part of it is this you have these so called investigations into my client's complaints which were done by individuals within the unit who attempted to put forth a standard as to what was appropriate behavior and whether or not what happened to my client either just didn't happen at all or should be considered some type of horse play which would only violate the rules but really didn't rise to the level of my client's constitutional rights but then you have going on at the same time the situation where you have a new officer who these same individuals within the unit handcuffed to a shopping cart in an area where only officers could be and he was there's different layers of testimony in the reports that says that he was forced into the shopping cart handcuffed you have other suggest that he got it whatever the situation was sergeant b s take on this and his deposition was about was no big deal but it rises to the level of being inappropriate conduct in the unit he there's no question that no way to run a railroad but i don't i don't understand why that would be particularly disturbing to your client or form a basis for some kind of a claim that the that the that the police department should should act upon for the benefit of your client because it was your client were not the one photograph i have the initial impression that your client's face was like photo shopped on to this oh no you know it was a i think it was i think what what part of it is this to bella set the scene as to what this unit was like what was the mores of this unit that it was a unit of a lawless n'est that it was a unit with different things with on and when you were victimized nothing was done or it was swept under the rug or it was so the unit commanders were so desensitized to what should have been the proper work environment that even sexual harassment and racial discrimination didn't rise to the level of anything so it goes to your to support your point that it should have been moved over to the unit that it should have been investigated outside and that there should have really been corrective action taken that this particular officers life was in danger and that while they were doing this you had individuals who were in transport so you know you had this dangerous situation that sort of swept under the rug whereas situations that they wanted to surveil against my client were made a matter of reports others were pressed into service against my client to write these bogus statements about my client shadowboxing all of those things on was to a level where my client on a daily basis was under this scrutiny that resulted in reprimands and then he was directed that he even could make complaints beyond the unit thank you thank you your honor we will reserve decision in the case of funks versus cosco wholesale corporation has taken on submission the case of laugher versus priceline group has taken on submission the case of myer versus shock and is taken on submission the case of blessing