as the district court but without any deference to the district court the issue is all the same here as they were in the district court on their genuine issues of material fact that pr summary judgment to favor a louisiana college and is louisiana college entitled to judgment as a matter of law we submit that the answer to those questions is that there are materializations of fact with gre of emotional distress whether an advisement is hospital or abusive can only be determined by looking at all of the circumstances let me start by placing the given the court some two thousand and fifteen this time on the cover of a losing on a college recruiting brochure that was distributed nationally and posted all of the louisiana college campus it was a constant voted to be a law enforcement officer and a private investigator who was a total stranger to the next day dr aguilar email dr brewer on two cases written demanding the return of his computer and dr brewer did not reply conduct took the computer to baton rouge with him and had the disability and possible hostile work environment claim there was never a retaliatory hostile work environment ever asserted not in the complaint not in the st amendment complaint and not in the e e o c filings there was no cite to the record where matter but held the following that the court will not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the st time in a motion for reconsideration and that's exactly what happened here the retaliatory hostile work environment claim never existed and feel free to ask louisiana college brought up a defamation action to protect its reputation its standing in the community of standing with current and its standing with former students st of all there is no temple proximity the more importantly there was no ability of mr and mr eko large fail at the district court noted in a very detailed decision to prove in a retaliation suit but for those complaints he said is good for the proposition that employed cannot be discharged for filing the e e o c complaint complaining malicious material that's not what happened here and there was no evidence to show that but what mr aguilar failed to do was to read the rest of the better way very love versus approved for eleven federal stuff three hundred and ninety two footnote three way explicitly stated that title seven did not prevent the employer for maintaining a defamation action and that's what happened here there's defenses he and it's simply his complaints to saks you can he says complaints with the facts were also protected by title seven there's no decision stating that in the th circuit clearly chill those types of things and filing a defamation action is something that people are entitled to do and prove their case on the court of law but the judge one of the great detail of of why the id decision was dismissed and all of these actions were dismissed there's no continuing towards this is these are these are distinct actions as was arrested as was described today by mr  respect to the defamation temp or proximity have to do with causation and there are other ways with showing causation than temp or proximity and this particular case the so there's no question but even at that tempo or proximity would required it's clear the reason being that lives in a college tactic believe late filing is petition but defamation