as to our next case which is roscoe versus york city administration for children's services have already submitted a written statement ok rect you've submitted a written brief this is to give you the purpose of this proceeding is to give you the opportunity to speak to us in person if you wish to do answer brief defendant was able to respond to this phrasing to address it defendant's arguments full or other issues a very pretty text is most important because it proves defendant to try to to cover up discrimination and e r one on one state direct evidence that is what is it that makes you believe that the reasons for any of these actions was your race for example oh actually more than race it's card i understand that any of the grounds pledge what is the evidence what what did anyone say or do that makes you believe that it was race national origin or color that led to any adverse consequence for you occurrences of discrimination including syria to be discrimination and all of discrimination cute too miss courses this is my black supervisor discriminatory intent against me because i'm not black the reason i'm saying  sprung up and i want to so shut what i don't see what i was a seeing what i was hearing i couldn't believe it and they watch when the do what you want to do and i didn't respond but in my mind i said my goodness i cannot believe what that i said he might be poetry on probation the note said that future misbehavior could result in disciplinary action yes and what is that how does that change wouldn't any misbehavior potentially result in disciplinary action anyway what changed about your status because of that note it's not what changed i mean the probation know what to say egypt discrimination and you know i know what i think is this is what change even as you understand that the law deals with employment action so yes when that happened to you on the basis of race color or national origin etc is that something that is harmful and what i'm saying is if nothing if all that's happening here is retaliation and also i guess to be something that is enough that a reasonable person would stop complaining in the future right and another thing i say because i'm not prepare for a loan i've been suffering intentional discrimination retaliation and harassment and the evidence is sufficient  good afternoon your honor i'm ellen ravitz on behalf of the administration for children's services mr asco has worked at a c s for eleven years and she's clearly not happy with her situation there she's very critical of and seems to have very little respect for her supervisor and her coworker miss phono however she also feels that anything that happens to her that she perceives as negative is because they are black and she is not but being subjected to an action in the workplace that you don't like does not amount to racial discrimination just because you're not the same race as the person against whom you make the allegations or a different person who was not treated the same way in this case there are a lot of factual allegations that mr asco has brought before the court and frankly most of them are not properly before the court she had several allegations about different incidents that happened back in two thousand and ten and two thousand and twelve there are time barred because she didn't bring her e e o c charge until two thousand and sixteen  in her reply she tries to revive a claim of a continuing violation which she did not pursue in her opening brief here but but again there is just no there's no evidence that any of those three incidences from years before either were made for discriminate discriminatory reasons or had any connection to the later allegations that she makes the only acts that she complained about to the e e o c involved this complaint about ms phone not giving her the work making this statement that she then described as immature teenage street gangster talk in a letter to her supervisor and then she also does admit that when they had the meeting she did utter the words street gangster or gangster talk sorry when his phone  apparently said something to her that she doesn't remember when she opened when she entered the room but and then the other matters that she complained about to the e e o c were just the sort of fallout from that that she was told  what she says is that she was put on probation basically she was told not to engage in similar kind of behavior that similar kind of behavior could result in some kind of discipline which judgment i believe you're right that it could have anyway without saying that there was no kind of probation here and and and then instructing her to apologize so those are those are the only allegations that she brought before the e e o c there were retaliatory and happened before she brought the e e o c charge and they should have been there and they weren't necessarily so related because all she complained about was this one incident about the language and being told not to use bad language and having to apologize so again but but in any case in any case the district court correctly  dismissed both the discrimination and retaliation and hostile work environment claims here because there was not any evidence sufficient to make out any of those claims for the discrimination claim the closest she does get to making an allegation of material adverse employment action was what she calls the probation for the reasons  pointed out it didn't change anything for her she was not put on probation she was just told not to shoot she was sort of reprimanded for using not a formal reprimand but you know she was she was told not to use inflammatory language which she did use both in her writing and during that meeting and she was told not to and just again told that similar behavior in the future could could lead to some kind of action against her it changed nothing and even and even if it could have constituted an adverse action there's nothing to show that it had anything to do with race again just because the other two women were black and she was not there's nothing in any of these allegations that references or even suggests that it's because she happened to be non bla which seems to be her main point and that they were black she didn't like it she they didn't like her behavior she didn't like their behavior but what did it have to do with race there's no evidence that it had anything to do with race  again with a hostile work environment claim what she tries to latch on to the severe and pervasive language and she complains that her coworkers are talking noisily on the phone all day was what caused her a hostile work environment that it was severe and it was pervasive and how could you possibly work when your coworker is there loudly on the phone all day and maybe that's true but again what did it have to do with race or any other illegal is illegal reason title seven doesn't protect you from a noisy neighbor at work unless it has something to do with an illegal in illegal reason and for retaliation again while the employment action is a looser are a looser  definition than is true for discrimination she doesn't she doesn't reach that either because all that happened here the is that she was told that her time she was improper because the lunch hour was improper and so she fixed it and then it was approved or she didn't show or one day she wasn't granted leave to go to a doctor's  because she had only let the supervisor know the day before again and again none of this was connected to her complaint and so it doesn't show any kind of  retaliatory motive you know at the end of the day ms rascal bolsters her arguments with theories and statements that don't constitute evidence she says for example in both of her briefs on appeal that she would not have complained to ms course the supervisors if she had not been discriminated against but that is not evidence she defends her own behavior by saying that no one should be punished for saying what's true and it's true that her coworkers behavior was immature teenage street gangster talk so she admits saying that but she disagrees with the fact that her supervisor had a problem with that language again that's not evidence that there was a racial motive in taking any action