i think all of those jenin: comments, you can say they are taken out of context. for me, they are not persuasive because people are disputing it. the most compelling evidence was looking at performance reviews and looking at her success. cory: they really did not have a policy or could not find a policy about equal opportunity and harassment. is that damming evidence, or does that show they didn't have a policy so they did not know what rules they were breaking? bill: the supreme court has addressed this. if you have a policy and the follow it, you are going to be in trouble, but not having a policy shows a workplace that doesn't really make sure the right thing is done for everybody. that's going to be a negative. in terms of the question you just asked before, by bringing in exclusion from different social events and things that men discuss on airplanes, this is designed to tug at the heartstrings of the jury and have these people, some of them are blue-collar types, put themselves in her position. there is an emotional factor that comes out if they believe her