swanson might have been particularly sensitive how does that impact your case just tell him that behavior occurred in the post relief time period and changed i don't see that she was pushed alleged to have been denied any promotions and that his her quality of her work suffered so that she had some something happen to her that wouldn't otherwise have happened with by the employer so and so we're really looking at essentially there's what two instances of staring right and you know i guess what is your best argument present that the work environment was subjectively and objectively hostile given that miss walpole's testimony she went about her business quote unquote carefree not caring who was around on credit during the eight months between the first and second staring instances if she didn't know about it how is this emotionally terrible for her in june good question on page nine of the reply we have cited american guarantee a the stairwell watching her and then within an hour there after she learned that on three previous occasions in that month he had done the same thing the binoculars all with not of her colleagues not even her supervisor told me cable at that time acting to stop it and this is what happens when no investigation is taken it sends a message that we just don't take these complaints seriously the court has said and work environment there and that that the facts presented at the record presented does have to fishing information the facts are there to support that finding by the district court number one all of the things that that occurred prior towards her no threats physical or emotional torture that was presented in the most for summary judgment and prior to october two thousand right right  paul and november notes have one staring incident right yes and why isn't the history of these least romantic interest in walpole coupled with the first scary incident sufficient to overcome summary judgment well from a distance was not until eight months later in june at the end of june two thousand and one ok now in eight months in between i guess it later comes out that he that there's some people that might have seen him looking at or right know about that in eight months right enough so and she makes the comment i was going about my work carefree and this that the other side does see employer in a vague way and she said that you know that if things need to be taken care of to go please take care of  moved to a different building that he was moved to different he was in the same building but he was put on a different shift so he was in there half the time and then he was out on medical leave a portion that eight months also the one when was he put on the different shift it was in the same fall of except for the one incident staring has been have the end of october two thousand intil tell me cable became aware of yourself seeing the staring by mr beazley at the end of june two thousand and one about eight months went by without any sort of thing occurring and any type of steering even kerry and all that time there was no indication that this walpole was aware that's one of the premises that we had there wasn't a hostile work environment at the end of june he does not believe those in the answer i mean in the complaint and the only references he makes is to mr britain's actions in october of two thousand and so those aren't sufficient in terms of this incidences that were reported in june were probably the same incident because they occurred at the lunch hour around the lunch hour on the day that miss cable went and advice will miss walpole that's that mr beazley may be looking at her  issue as to whether there's a hostile work environment that's that that's what the courts decided on summary judgment and on summary judgment you have to take do you take all inferences in favor of your client you know the facts that are all favorable for your client and you have a body that you know that go what the relationship was back to what you know what the incidence of staring and then you take all of those facts that are favorable in the court has to say as a matter of law is there is is that is it's a matter of law is that not a hostile of the victim exactly exactly and here we have this we have sufficient evidence to support a claim lord to let me ask you this for a hostile work environment that is for the emotional suffering in the kinds of things that that you are alleging your client went through does not the klein have to be aware of that hostility in order to have it be hostile she was aware of the act of june twenty ninth two thousand and one in which she was watching her and within an hour there after she learned that on three previous occasions told me cable herself had come to know that mr beasley was again watching her with that she stuck with her deposition testimony which where she says that she went about her business carefree not caring who was around between october twenty fourth and she and twenty nine she stuck with that deposition testimony so the evidence shows that during that period she was not either subjectively or objective and she didn't objectively or subjectively find the workplace hostile that is correct so again at that point when she goes back and says ok you know now i'm