statute for state under state law the sexual harassment under state law for retaliation and the family medical leave act for retaliation mister lisick worked for andersen company for approximately eighteen years he does not dispute the fact that he did have two prior incidents to do this relating to lotto to go procedures at the rd incident which is at issue and it's our position that he has created genuine issues of material receive the pictures he just knew of them well it was a situation addressed rather quickly by the company i mean i mean yes it was but i mean he actually reported approximately eleven employees they were all brought in under an investigation and basically all knew that it was lisick that was reporting that so it's our position that that was retaliation for him reporting those accusations of sexting nude pictures of living women c turner versus i d s financial which is for seventy one northwest nd one o five which is a minnesota supreme court decision from one thousand nine hundred and one essentially saying that an employee for her at our under discrimination statute cannot really bring a cause of action unless and until there's been substantial adverse action taken against him i think that's consistent with what the case but should be courts have been fairly reluctant to at least in my experience to accept claims and lesson to learn some substantial adverse action in other words if you would have brought the claim right away after september th or whatever the courts would certainly be asking me what was the adverse action that occurred mister feet wide and anything happened there you know and basically i keep talking about or argument because of the sphere and pervasive element of of a sexual harassment claim but i do still believe that it's you and it's the proposition that a plaintiff cannot even bring a cause of action unless and until there's been some adverse action and so i think that does relate back to the september th so we can tell we can prove that there's been some adverse action which arguably there wasn't any intel january rd you know it's our position that is his claim was timely and certainly that we palliation claim would be time not disagreeing with the court here but but certainly the courts have been more and more focusing on what adverse action has has occurred so i mean are we really even take it case unless there's been a demotion over duction unpaid because the courts will consistently say look if nothing's happened here and certainly defense cult so in any kind of rebuttal letter to our letters indicates hey look at nothing adverse happened here so you don't even have a claim here so i mean our position is that the after that not for me i mean i guess what i like to and it gets kind of complicated because the focus is going to be on a lot go to go procedures which is a requirement from anderson and this particular machine is located on one floor and then there's a nd floor and we actually went out there observe it i mean it's a massive complex and basically it's our position that mister lisick had denied any inappropriate conduct the whole andersen in july of seventeen and did this investigation approximately five months after that so that position actually had very very limited experience and she even admitted that in her deposition testimony and i had asked the court that kind of review five mispronouncing that but anyways it's our position there are cases similar to that case and basically because the investigation was less than thorough and it's our position that was not made in good faith and that they put somebody on this who didn't know very much about how the procedures work and basically and they are complicated procedures one as far as receptacle number nine is you can't just walk in there and i don't understand what that what happens on the block ok go procedures counsel is this more i just want to understand the argument you're making and where which part of the the argument the way in which it is my understanding is nobody is arguing that there was no legitimate nondiscriminatory  court indicated a sham they put somebody in charge that didn't really know the rule and fitzmaurice signed off on he knew about the sexual harassment he knew about that i watched the situation he knew about the s m l a request and so he knew about all this he signed  were fairly clear to anybody so when i asked these individual employees did this have to be locked out and they all indicated no one you know i think they're trying to anticipate what i was trying to get at so we had to go back and forth and round and round as far as whether or not i think you might still be limitation jury i think it is incorrect to say you can't bring a plan until you are terminated that would suggest you could never really play for sexual harassment if you're never terminated back past the law the law says you burn a claim for sexual harassment when you've experienced conduct so severe or pervasive that it alters the terms and conditions of employment that being adverse action has occurred whether you've been terminated or pervasive activity as your lives are all listed in a failed effort to be funny apparently and he also heard about but did see sexually explicit text messages investigated the text messages learned that they were set by the vendors employee that vendor was contacted and called and almost certain terms do not send them back and they didn't problems out exactly how the court indigents employers dealing with situations of this sort so for any one of those three reasons statute of limitations lack of severe pervasive activity anderson's time and ended more than one year prior to the lawsuit so we look at the retaliation claims that all share the same four d problems no crime of the state no evidence of one thing and we may not agree on much today mister wizard but the one thing we're going to is that when you remove that chain are there you have to be locked out period answer correct so o'clock i don't believe so but that's not the standard the standard is not whether she conducted an investigation subject of lee except the will to mister list or me or anybody else the issue is that she  whether the employer believes still in good faith and so i i i don't agree with the premise that he didn't do it i think it's likely likely that explains his comments in his own that and show that anderson was not in good faith or anderson knew he didn't do it and that is anderson's pretax simply saying you didn't do it he's up the pretext argument but it doesn't accomplish t all right we'll assume that mister c does not want any additional pie so thanks to both counsel for your argument oh there you are mister he did you want to take it and i never got the sack to respond no i'm good your honor thank you thank you thanks to