failure to morrow promote claim the claim that the judge was addressing what i just read the court indicated that it grants defendants motion to dismiss appellant failure to promote claim contrary to what we believe it i the opinion that make it clear that all the claims were dismissed except as to the probation claims against gross and jones and then the claims against gross were discontinued voluntarily so the summary judgment was simply page essay thirteen starts with the heading be gender discrimination and failure to promote which is the central question we raised with regard to all of the individuals the judge it concluded that section with the language i just read which doesn't judge decision was playing with regard to the gender discrimination a failure to promote and i just say that we have the ability then to decide that the motion to dismiss was granted as well as the hospital work environment element of this which is the rd part of the decision on the motion to dismiss it's well balanced up in a certain way to gather if you believe that the motion this mess meant to dismiss the gender regard to that aspect of it it discrimination which is never refuted by the counting its papers kapisa been to the nine page fifty six point one statement which doesn't in any way justify the promotions which is made in this period of time with the subject of discovery in the litigation th argument we made was with regard to the house the work environment claims or the harassment plan the district court judge says even if you plead and specify as we did it a pattern of promoting women who essentially slept with their a nd how or how is that how there may be a claim there what i have difficulty understanding is how it's a hostile work environment cleaning because an individual in the work environment has a right to be freely considered for promotions part page eighteen that the court dismisses all claims against the boys that are in the county and it reiterates that at page twenty six of the summary judgment motion i don't know how much clearer it could be mr sutton's allegation that because the court whether or not he allegedly he raised enough factual allegations in the complaint to show decker's personal involvement and the boys of person involvement and or widespread practice to show  only ones that are the pacific to him are in paragraph nineteen which is j a thirteen dollars fifteen cents and that's just that he's a fraction is officer of the correctional administrator that he failed to obtain a list of eligible which the any appointment to that position shall be made by the flexion of one of three persons certified by the civil service commission as standing highest on the on ability d list and so therefore if someone is automatically eligible d he does not have to canvass all those person commotions but there's no allegation that he pursued participated in them or that he still to remedy are wrong because there are no factual allegations that there that he was aware of a discriminatory policy or even aware of a hostile work environment that persons allegedly were only being promoted because of preferential treatment there's no allegation that he created a policy under which unconstitutional practices occurred and there are no i would say said that he knew about anything that his subordinates were doing and most of all the allegation that he that anyone violated the civil service law by making the promotion from corrections officer to corrections sergeant with respect to a hostile work environment how do you respond to the argument that it occurred one was in two thousand and eight where someone with promoted and another one did not allege that it was a corrections officer and the other three were persons who allegedly were given preferential treatment because of their personal relationship but it still has to it still fails to make any factual allegations of how that affected her their good there isn't any allegations that she was injured by that by those out by the  preferential treatment for that she was equally qualified for them or anything along those lines or that she was even in the same area when when they occur she might have been working a different shift there just are not enough factual allegations are just completely conclusory and with respect to december two thousand and twelve to january two thousand and thirteen and during that time he did make to the motion at that time there's no allegation and there's no proof and no evidence in the record that the loose with even eligible to be promoted and after two thousand two thousand and thirteen when mr jones left and was no longer the jail administrator he had no personal involvement and any promotions whatsoever and the transcripts are completely clear on that and the evidence so i think because she didn't become knowledgeable on the civil service list many of twenty four team of that correct well the st and the st appointment that she could have had was in december of two thousand and fourteen but there was no time directly participated in anything or that he learned of any kind of wrong and failed to remedy it or created a policy or that he was grossly negligent that so there is no issue of fact for which a jury under which a jury could find that kind of jones was responsible for could court also found that he failed they now claim either because the boy has a policy maker with did not he did not allegedly took any actions or made any decision that actually appellant constitutional deprivation and schooling that he is the policy maker there or not you fail to state a plausible can claim that after learning of any alleged violations he chose to ignore the polic undersheriff or spoke to the sheriff or anyone the guarding the allegations that she makes regarding preferential treatment and regarding the promotion to the corrections sergeant and again they're all governed by civil service law you have to score it to one of the top three stories and if you're not you're not even reachable d in the st place with respect to the claim that there were ten qualified person and they were never  necessarily indicative of gender discrimination or of a discriminatory policy it's really a matter of how many males are above and in the top three and how many singles and i can tell you that there are many more males corrections see it which is that the like adequately sets forth as do the summary judgment papers the claim that this fuller d was discriminated against on the basis of her gender by being denied eight promotions between clean august of two thousand and fourteen just so we're clear the promotions we're speaking about started with her in august of fourteen she was reachable at that time she was not promoted in eight males or the males were ryan mar  to go through that chain of command so to say these individuals who are personally involved they were all involved in the review of those and the approval in fact it's clear from jones deposition he states will never gave that authority up to him or personally involved in decisions beyond the two that are or referenced thirty four a and b of the complaint both demonstrate that jones was involved beyond those two promotions in the relevant statue limitations climbable women who are in fact personally associated with him and involved in intimate relationship with him with regard to thirty four a i won't mention the person she mentioned they are for the position of sergeant he was involved in the practice of creating that hostile environment i think councils argument that ha environment doesn't affect miss foluke is plainly wrong she's affected by the hospital environment because she's an individual seeing that we're not engaging in that pattern of behavior which is necessary courting to the complaint again promotion she's the rectally affected by it the argument that it's not severe pervasive doesn't make sense because if it's true that a woman must engage in that behavior in order to be promoted it's plainly pervasive it affects the entire work environment on a day to day basis because one of the things you're doing it work is to try and succeed so you can back get promoted if you can it's a material condition of your want to say it doesn't affect our baseless thank you for your consideration thank you