Chanler

And so the judge actually really comes to his defense.

Now the judge, if you go several paragraphs later,

You know, he says the comments he made about her appearance were not appropriate.

And just because she might have referred to an outfit as sexy does not give him license to make, you know, whatever comments he wants about her body and about her physical appearance.

He says Jenny Slate was offended.

And he also, he cites, you know,

messages she sent friends during the filming where she was saying to her friends I'm creeped out by this guy I find him to be weird I find this to be an HR nightmare so it's not like he is saying this is all fabricated and nonsense but he just kind of goes line by line of the case and says where he thinks there's

some truth and where he thinks that there, you know, it's kind of honestly kind of BS.

I think he's looking at it and kind of sifting through all the claims and, you know, saying in his, in his judgments, it might've felt like to her, this was happening, but under this law, that's not actually enough or this doesn't,

prove out to be sexual harassment.

And so it's just that is not a technicality.

That to me feels like substantive, like there was a lack of evidence.

And I want to talk about the technicality issue because I'm seeing that a lot.

I'm seeing people commenting that.

And this was a substantive ruling.

This was not like, whoopsie, you didn't file this right document.

So the whole thing is tossed out.

There was a lack of evidence.

And if there had been enough evidence,

this would have ended differently but there was not enough evidence and they've had years to come up with this evidence to to you know get get their ducks in a row and it just did not happen right the judge basically says even if you take all of this collectively it doesn't rise to the threshold of sexual harassment even if she was an employee yeah