one in reaching that standard the court visited the senate report in two regards one in assessing the context in which thirty seven thirty eight wanted to have been reached and also in setting the causation standard cell at footnote seven dummy had difficulty getting to legislative history unless we find that there is ambiguity in the statute and postmaster every really going to with respect to says special damages using the language result result of and also in language but for here in a single stack here in a single section age that congress is used three separate causation standard wordings and having used the words but for work and result of the h two we believe that it's it's evidence that congress knew how to say but for when it was their intention plus in light of the fact that we have the senate report saying exactly what it was that because of met we really do believe that in the context it makes sense to treat believe it was this quickly robbery and its insiders reach the conclusion that there is no quasi exhaustive requirement with respect to constructive discharge and thus i would say that having raised this although it was not in the contemplation of of the pilot at the time what we learned subsequently was that her instinct that this was a forced terminations was borne out by the evidence  events having gone ahead and given her this performance improvement plan and it got ahead and taking her from the top of performance standards to all of a sudden getting her needs improvement and suggesting that she was  at the bottom just months after after her stellar performance had resulted in her promotion from assistant director to tractor that these things all together would result in her resigning and we've factors but too as something which might independently be enough to satisfy the so intolerable stand if there are no more questions for the poet believe i've said what ok very well thank you view of that type of criticism of their performance although we don't have a subjective view of exactly what happened here in terms of her having been promoted and then shortly thereafter she gets reprimanded she is told to look at things you know in a gray area she's getting a lot of feedback that says she's not you know kind of a team player and i'm just wondering whether this is the kind of situation where a jury should really perceive these people you know having been a trial judge you know if if your came off credibly and her supervisor did not versus she comes off not credibly the supervisor does these things can really fl what's intolerable to one person might not seem intolerable to another i just wonder whether it but the judges should be deciding at best and fair to reasonable reasonable people well here i believe that this court  and the pennsylvania courts in the case of wrongful discharge have held that courts should make that inquiry in the first place i'm that we are going to take it out of misty from worries and then we're going to look at it objectively how to sh satisfy the aisles factors well when you look at the very facts of clough's you see the facts that strike up that line up almost identical we have a manager that's hyper critical of p performance we have warnings that performance will be actively monitored and this as we have a kind of statement that if you fail to improve disciplinary added benefit cation of factors but a new review of the context and recognition that there needs to be this very high bar in fact even in the context of a hostile work environment claim that a couple garden variety hostile work environment i exists even that is not sufficient that there needs to be a further agree just honest to a hostile work environment before an employee can resign and claim constructive discharge on this issue if i may dress with the threat of terminations on if anything here we have this factor pointing us in the other direction because  about her performance so they jump determination of employment yet again they do something to give some form of a place to process they put her on a performance improvement plan so why is  the record shows is down roads were a dead end for anybody who's going into it and that's right judge so now what year is the message that you would send to employer is that you don't give it a final hey you know you're not getting the message evidence is that there were others who were placed on performance improvement plans and their employment wasn't terminated so it would be entirely speculative with nothing on this record that would reflect that it was reasonable for to assume without even spending two days let alone two hours trying to comply with this performance improvement plan that some forty five days later she would be terminated that she had no option that she was effectively forced compelled under the circumstances to resign there was no evidence of any hostile work environment what is in the record regarding the likelihood that  either resigned rather than played out some didn't survive but then there were a handful who did complete it successfully so to say that it's a co had things like me move to a remote facility being urged to retire having his office moved floors away from the operating room being subjected to just commons here even with respect to the alleged protected activity you have no evidence that there was anything that she was being encouraged to do anywhere near the time that she needed decision to resign the legal so called a legal front pass and there's no evidence that there were there was anything other legal about them the last time she was asked to do that was the first time she said you know i'm not only not comfortable doing it this way and what was the response of c s l beria was no our way or the highway it says oh you think we want to do it that way ok we can do with them let's talk about the cars asian standard measure whether it was proper for the district judge to instruct them on the but reinforces what grows and nasser teach and that is when you use because of that is equivalent to but for and in fact with respect to  congress and their intent congress entitle sevens prohibited discrimination provision contrary to its retaliation provision used different language and that's different language  retaliation in nasser and in fact even in other context or when there is no basis to distinguish statutes based on the liberal nature of the the subject matter we  grapple with that whereas in the false claims act if you look at the language of thirty seven thirty eight it couldn't be any were clearer but in fact this is prohibiting retaliation that it we're not saying that they meant to exclude any other factor that might have been that joe did i think that would be going somewhere that this court under well let as it means decide see if they meant what they said in answer or whether they say wait a minute we really don't think that this is supposed to be that exclusive but i don't where it says in the law that this isn't permitted she makes a reference to the fact that you know she's not the judge but she was asking these questions where we had to say that any of this was necessarily you know unlawful as things are illegal under what's that you were raised we believe that they were illegal under the under the false claims act your honor and that of course is the basis were the false claims act retaliation which was that she was standing up for what she believed to be protection be illegal under the force and that they're illegal because the law says they asked me to write this on a prescription and that's not allowed by  that it did not necessarily make sense to import the language or the traditions from a different statute in that case title seven although up until that point the supreme court had construed title seven and as reaching a certain level of causation because of the because a bribe was that it doesn't necessarily make sense to import it into federal whistleblower statute i mean congress itself in the section that that  which the past in the way that they had been the way that they had been construed the court also took note in terms of the context of the fact that federal whistleblower statutes are are important for a different reason because the this is not a single  going up against a single employer and this is not a criminal case in which we're looking at a sentencing enhancement where the rules apply this is the trying to create a world in which with with the possibility of the confusion of the jury is the burden of persuasion and the way that that may impact how this falls but in the in the abstract the only real difference