Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is the no-nonsense employment law podcast made exclusively for employees. After 200+ episodes, we deliver the straight talk your employer and HR don’t want you to hear — covering every work and career issue that actually matters.
Hosted and produced by Mark Carey, a veteran employment lawyer with 29 years of experience who has litigated hundreds of cases — including class actions — in state and federal courts nationwide. Mark cuts through the BS with blunt, practical advice, always presenting both sides so you can make informed decisions. This podcast is also about your employment story and other courageous employees who have spoken out about their employers. If you work for a living, this is your podcast.
BRAND NEW: Employee Survival Guide AI (https://markx4umtq.customgpt-agents.com)
Now you can use our newly created AI agent to ask questions about your job and legal claims and receive answers based on our entire catalogue of podcast episodes and the full content from our extensive website.
Subscribe to our employee podcast show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this employee podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
The HR Mirage: Fortmann v. St. John's University
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
You do everything you’re told to do. You document the harassment. You report it to HR. You keep showing up and trying to be “professional.” Then a judge agrees the allegations are severe and still throws out major parts of your case because the paperwork wasn’t perfect. That’s the stomach-dropping reality we dig into as we break down a 2026 federal court memorandum involving St. John’s University, a department chair, and two employees caught in a system that rewards technical compliance over human safety.
We walk through the alleged retaliation against a tenure track professor after he reports misconduct: personal attacks, frozen research funds, “safety concerns” used as a pretext, and strategic moves that can poison teaching evaluations and tenure review. Then we shift to the allegations from an adjunct professor facing quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation, including repeated written complaints to HR and an institutional response that the court considers through the lens of deliberate indifference under Title VII and Title IX.
The biggest listener takeaway is procedural: a strong story and even strong evidence are not enough in federal employment law. We explain the EEOC charge requirement, the checkbox and narrative traps that can bar claims, and the unforgiving 300-day deadline that keeps running while HR says they’re “looking into it.” If you want a clearer map of how toxic workplaces protect power and how to protect your legal options early, press play, then subscribe, share this with a coworker, and leave a review with the one rule you wish every employee knew.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn.
We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will help other employees find the Employee Survival Guide.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
A Nightmare Case Setup
SPEAKER_01Welcome to another episode of the Employee Survival Guide produced by Employment Attorney Mark Carey. Imagine for a second that you finally managed to prove to a federal judge that your boss harassed you.
SPEAKER_00Right. And not just harassed you, but deliberately sabotaged your career.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Exactly. And you have this absolute mountain of documented evidence. You did everything right. But then the judge just throws out a massive chunk of your case.
SPEAKER_00And it's not because they don't believe you, but you know, because you used the wrong form to report it.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It is just uh wild reality.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell But that is exactly what we are getting into today. We are looking at a 2026 federal court memorandum in order.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yeah. This is the Fortman and Sever versus St. John's University and Mustafa Sadoki case. Right. And our mission today is to unpack the facts of this legal decision strictly through the lens of the employee.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Because we really want to treat this case as a masterclass for you, the listener. It's about helping you recognize the patterns of a toxic employer.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yeah. And to understand how HR departments actually function in a crisis. Right. Right. And of course, how to avoid those strict legal traps that could just destroy your case on a technicality.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Before we really get into the details, it is it's crucial to understand the legal posture of what we are looking at here.
SPEAKER_01Oh, definitely.
SPEAKER_00Memorandum and order at this stage of a lawsuit, so we're often dealing with a motion to dismiss, means the court is required by law to assume that all the plaintiffs' allegations are true.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right. So the judge is essentially saying even if we accept every terrible thing you allege is 100% factual, do you actually have a valid legal claim under the statutes?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Exactly. So as we discuss these horrific events, we are looking at the allegations the court is testing against the strict letter of the law.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell That is such an important distinction because man, the allegations here are intense. So let's set this stage.
SPEAKER_00Good idea.
SPEAKER_01We
Meet The Players At SJU
SPEAKER_01are looking at the physics department at St. John's University, or SJU. We have two employees, the plaintiffs.
SPEAKER_00Right. Dr. Charles Fortman and Dr. Zehra Sever.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Dr. Fortman is a tenure track professor, and Dr. Sever is an adjunct associate professor. And on the other side is the employer's agent.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell The defendant, Dr. Mustafa Sadoki. He is the chair of the physics department.
SPEAKER_01So let's start with Dr. Fortman because his experience shows like exactly how an institution reacts to an employee who simply tries to do the right thing.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah, just trying to report bad behavior.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Fortman was highly successful before all this started, wasn't he?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell He was on a very clear upward trajectory. Yeah. In 2017, he was promoted to a full-time tenure track position.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Which is huge in academia.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It is. And with that promotion, he actually secured a massive $100,000 research grant to install a highly specialized piece of equipment.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Superconducting a magnet, right?
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus Exactly. And you know, in the academic world, bringing in that kind of grant money makes you a massive asset to the university.
SPEAKER_01Sure.
SPEAKER_00But everything shifted when Fortman decided to act as a whistleblower
Whistleblowing Triggers Retaliation
SPEAKER_00against his own boss, Dr. Sudoki.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And he wasn't even reporting like embezzlement or academic fraud. He was reporting interpersonal toxicity and discrimination against other people.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Right. The documents allege that Sudoki asked Fortman to give a negative recommendation to a female student.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Purely because Sudoki claimed she was flirting, which is just wow.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And there are also allegations that Sudoki bragged about firing a black department secretary by like deliberately misrepresenting her start date.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell So Fortman sees all this and he repeatedly reports his boss to human resources.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell And that right there is the catalyst. Almost immediately after Fortman reports him, the environment just turns totally hostile.
SPEAKER_01Trevor Burrus Retaliation mode.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Sudoki begins publicly and privately attacking Fortman. He starts calling him old, telling him he is burned out.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell And literally labeling his the villain of the department, which sounds like a cartoon, but it's real life.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's completely real.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell You know, it's like reporting toxic behavior to HR is treated by toxic bosses like a declaration of war.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That's a great way to put it.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And the boss immediately begins searching for ways to just cut off the employee's supply lines, right? But I want to stop right there because this is where a lot of people get confused.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell How so?
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Well, if an employee is bringing in hundred thousand dollar grants, why would the employer tolerate a department chair actively attacking that person? Aaron Powell Right.
SPEAKER_00It seems counterintuitive.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It seems completely counterintuitive to the university's bottom line.
SPEAKER_00It does until you understand what toxic management actually prioritizes.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Which is what?
SPEAKER_00Power.
SPEAKER_01Basically, yeah.
SPEAKER_00In these environments, loyalty to the so-called chain of command is often valued far above maintaining a safe, compliant workplace. Wow. So when Fortman broke that chain of loyalty to report misconduct to HR, he went from being a financial asset to an institutional threat.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So the retaliation wasn't about Fortman's physics research at all.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Not at all. It was a personal vendetta to re-establish dominance.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell But you know, in a modern corporate or academic setting, a toxic boss usually can't just fire a ten-year-track professor on the spot because they don't like him.
SPEAKER_00No, they can't.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So how does this retaliation actually play out mechanically?
Bureaucracy As A Weapon
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell They weaponized the bureaucracy. They use the institution's own rules to slowly strangle your ability to do your job.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay. So what did that look like for Fortman?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, at first, Sadoki froze his startup funds.
unknownOh man.
SPEAKER_01So you couldn't buy what he needed.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. This forced Fortman to self-fund his own academic research for years out of his own pocket.
SPEAKER_01That is insane.
SPEAKER_00But the most insidious tactic was what he did regarding that superconducting magnet we mentioned earlier.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell This part is fascinating. Fortman is trying to install this machine, which is obviously crucial for his research and his path to tenure, right? Right. And the lawsuit alleges Sadaki starts imposing what they called excessive and dubious cycles of safety concerns. Aaron Powell Yeah.
SPEAKER_00He becomes hyper-fixated on safety protocols that aren't even required by standard industry practice.
SPEAKER_01Just to create hurdles for Fortman. Meanwhile, other employees in the exact same building are operating similar magnets without any of these extreme demands.
SPEAKER_00It's totally targeted.
SPEAKER_01But wait, if a boss suddenly imposes unprecedented safety standards on just one single employee's project, isn't that a giant glaring red flag for the university's administration?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell You would think so.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right. Like why doesn't upper management see through this?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Because toxic employers know exactly how to hide their retaliation behind the impenetrable shield of compliance.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell All right. Safety first.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. To upper management or an inattentive HR representative reviewing a file, a manager raising safety concerns doesn't look like retaliation.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It just looks like a manager doing their job diligently.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yes. It manufactures a paper trail that looks entirely legitimate on the surface. They aren't actually trying to make the workplace safer.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell They are deliberately setting the employee up to fail so they can document a history of the employee's inability to execute.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Precisely. They are basically generating a fake performance issue.
SPEAKER_01And Sadaki didn't stop there.
SPEAKER_00He did.
SPEAKER_01He also allegedly sabotaged Fortman's teaching metrics, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell He did. Right before student evaluations, Sadaki abruptly moved Fortman from teaching a highly popular 50-student college physics class.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And why does that matter?
SPEAKER_00Because smaller class sizes are much easier to skew negatively if just one or two students give a bad review.
SPEAKER_01Exactly.
SPEAKER_00Sadoki knew this would damage Fortman's metrics when the tenure committee reviewed him.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell The documents even allege he went to Dr. Sever and asked her to find a Turkish professor just so he could lobby that professor to vote against Fortman's tenure.
SPEAKER_00Which
Adjunct Vulnerability And Quid Pro Quo
SPEAKER_00perfectly transitions to the second plaintiff, Dr. Zephra Sever.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, let's talk about her.
SPEAKER_00Because if St. John's University allowed a department chair to openly retaliate against a peer, a tenure-track professor like Fortman, without any real consequences.
SPEAKER_01They were establishing a culture of impunity.
SPEAKER_00Yes. And that culture set the stage for an even darker pattern of abuse against a much more vulnerable junior employee.
SPEAKER_01Let's talk about the power dynamics here for a second. Dr. Sever was an adjunct professor.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_01And for anyone who doesn't know, an adjunct has virtually zero job security. They are essentially contract workers.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell They are highly vulnerable.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And she reported directly to Sudoki. So beginning in 2018, the escalation of the hostile environment she faced is just staggering.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell The allegations detail a harrowing case of quid pro quo sexual harassment.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It's really hard to read.
SPEAKER_00It is. Sudoki allegedly would uninvitedly enter her classrooms while she was teaching just to stare at her. Uh he would wait outside her home, sometimes for hours, to demand that she accept car rides from him.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And it even escalated to physical assault, right? Grabbing her and forcing kisses on her?
SPEAKER_00Yes. And he also made these bizarre, grandiose promises, claiming he was going to become an advisor to the king of Morocco and that he would take her with him.
SPEAKER_01I have to ask, how does an employee navigate this when the harasser is the department chair?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's incredibly difficult.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell I mean he controls her paycheck, her lab space, and is literally waiting outside her house. It feels less like a workplace conflict and more like a hostage situation.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell It is essentially professional hostage taking.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell And that is exactly why the law recognizes quid pro quo harassment.
SPEAKER_00Which means this for that.
SPEAKER_01Right.
SPEAKER_00It occurs when a manager makes an employee's reaction to unwelcome sexual conduct, the basis for decisions affecting their employment.
SPEAKER_01So he directly tied her career to his sexual advances?
SPEAKER_00Yes. He offered her a non-tenure track position, literally begged her to accept it, and then used that job as leverage.
SPEAKER_01And when she repeatedly rejected his marriage proposals and sexual advances, the retaliation was absolute.
SPEAKER_00Completely. He blocked her from her lab space, yelled at her publicly in front of colleagues, and even had her locked out of her work emails.
SPEAKER_01Wow. So if the boss is weaponizing the department's rules and controlling your physical workspace, the only logical move for Sever is to bypass him entirely and go to human resources.
SPEAKER_00You would think so, yes.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell But when she actually pulled that alarm, how did the university systems react to a department chair acting like this?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell This is where we see the stark reality of institutional protection. In the spring of 2023 alone, Dr. Sever filed nine complaint letters with HR.
SPEAKER_01Hold on. Nine letters?
SPEAKER_00Nine letters. She was in such fear that she actually called public safety to dispatch a security guard to witness the harassment.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell She had a university security guard dispatched to witness the harassment. How can an institution look at that and do absolutely nothing? Did HR even respond?
SPEAKER_00They responded by telling her they were unable to substantiate her claims.
SPEAKER_01Unable to substantiate.
SPEAKER_00Yes.
SPEAKER_01So they can eventually say, Oh, we didn't fire her because she complained. We fired her because her research was poor.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Exactly. They manufacture a legitimate sounding reason. And when the university finally did decide to formally investigate, their approach was incredibly aggressive toward the victim.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell What did they do?
SPEAKER_00SJU lawyers interrogated Dr. Savant for three hours without an attorney or an advisor present on her behalf.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell That is brutal.
SPEAKER_00Ultimately, the university rejected her reappointment. They fired the victim. And according to the timeline of these documents, Dr. Sudoki remains the chair of the department.
SPEAKER_01That just shatters the entire illusion. We grew up thinking HR is like the police department for the workplace, right?
SPEAKER_00Yes. That's the myth.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell But it sounds more like HR is a building inspector hired by the landlord, not the tenant. Like they're there to check for structural liability to the building, the university, not to make sure your apartment is actually safe to live in.
SPEAKER_00That is a very accurate analogy. Which
Nine HR Complaints And No Help
SPEAKER_00brings us to a vital legal concept the court focused heavily on: deliberate indifference.
SPEAKER_01Okay. Break that down for us.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell So the federal judge allowed Surratt's Title IX and Title VII claims to survive the university's motion to dismiss.
SPEAKER_01Title VII being the one that protects employees from discrimination based on sex, race, and religion.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Right. And Title IX specifically targets sex-based discrimination in educational programs.
SPEAKER_01Got it.
SPEAKER_00To qualify as deliberately indifferent under the law, an employer doesn't just have to be bad at their jobs. Incompetence isn't always illegal.
SPEAKER_01Unfortunately.
SPEAKER_00Deliberate indifference requires proving the institution had actual knowledge of the severe harassment and deliberately chose a response that was clearly unreasonable.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So where is that legal line drawn? Like if HR investigates and just does a really sloppy job, does that count?
SPEAKER_00Usually no. A sloppy investigation might just be negligence. But here, the judge ruled that ignoring nine complaints, interrogating the victim without representation, and then firing her while protecting the accused harasser.
SPEAKER_01That crosses the line into a clearly unreasonable response.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. They didn't just fail to protect her, their actions actively shielded the harasser.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay, so because of that deliberate indifference, Dr. Siebird gets her day in court for those claims. She does.
Deliberate Indifference Explained
SPEAKER_01But this is where the legal mechanics get truly terrifying for an employee trying to survive a hostile workplace.
SPEAKER_00The procedural traps.
SPEAKER_01Yes, the procedural traps. Because even when you have a horrific, documented, factual case of discrimination and retaliation, the employer can still beat you on a technicality.
SPEAKER_00And that is exactly what happened to some of Fortman's claims.
SPEAKER_01Trevor Burrus, Jr. Right. Let's look at why the judge actually dismissed several of Dr. Fortman's claims, despite everything we just talked about.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell This is a critical area for employees to understand. The justice system, particularly in federal employment law, requires absolute procedural perfection.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell, which is so hard when you're in crisis mode.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It is.
SPEAKER_01And the judge threw those claims out entirely, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Completely. The primary reasons? Failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the statute of limitations.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell
The EEOC Checkbox Trap
SPEAKER_01Let's talk about the EEOC checkbox trap first, because this one blew my mind.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell It catches so many people.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell So Fortman claimed in his federal lawsuit that he suffered religious discrimination because Sudoki allegedly accused him of lying about being Catholic. Right. But before you can sue in federal court, you have to file a formal charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC.
SPEAKER_00Correct.
SPEAKER_01When Fortman filled out that original initial form, he only physically checked the boxes for age and retaliation. He didn't check the box for religion.
SPEAKER_00And he didn't write about the religious discrimination in the narrative section of that specific form either.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And because of that single omission on an administrative form, the federal judge threw the religious discrimination claims out.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. The courts enforce a very rigid rule. If a claim in your lawsuit isn't reasonably related to what you put on that initial EEOC form, it cannot be brought into federal court later.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It's like having your house burned down, but the insurance company denies your completely valid claim because you filled out the initial report with a blue pen instead of black ink.
SPEAKER_00It's incredibly frustrating.
SPEAKER_01The fire still happened. The damage is real. You have photos of the flames, but the system simply doesn't care. It feels incredibly punitive to the victim.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It does feel punitive. But you know, from the court's perspective, the primary purpose of that EEOC form is to give the government agency a chance to investigate.
SPEAKER_01Okay, sure.
SPEAKER_00And to put the employer on official notice of exactly what they are being accused of. If you don't check the box or explicitly write it in the narrative, the court views it as you failing to give them that required notice.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell You fail to exhaust your administrative remedies.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And that rigidity extends to time frames as well.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell
The 300 Day Deadline Danger
SPEAKER_01Right, the 300-day rule.
SPEAKER_00Let's get into that. Under federal laws like Title VII and the ADEA, in a state like New York, you must file your claim with the EEOC within 300 days of the discrete discriminatory or retaliatory act.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell So if you file on day 301.
SPEAKER_00Your claim is dead. Many of Fortman's age discrimination claims were tossed right out the window because he waited too long to formally file with the EEOC.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell But wait, the documents show he was fighting this internally with the university's HR department the entire time. Aaron Powell He was. Are you saying that while an employee is trying to handle things professionally through internal mediation, the legal clock is just ticking down in the background?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yes. And that is one of the most dangerous traps for an employee. The legal clock does not pause just because human resources tells you they are looking into it.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell That is so manipulative.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Plaintiffs often try to argue the continuing violation doctrine. They argue, well, the harassment was an ongoing daily pattern of abuse, so the 300-day clock shouldn't start until the very last act.
SPEAKER_01Which logically makes sense.
SPEAKER_00Which logically makes sense.
SPEAKER_01If you were being abused every day, it's one big event. You think you are doing the responsible thing by letting the company's internal process play out. And all the while your actual legal rights are just expiring.
SPEAKER_00Which is why understanding the mechanism of the law is your only real defense. You cannot wait for the company to do the right thing if it means letting your legal deadlines pass.
SPEAKER_01Because they won't.
SPEAKER_00Right. And when you do file your paperwork, you must be exhaustively thorough. You cannot assume the court will connect the dots for you later.
Survival Tools And The Final Question
SPEAKER_01When you step back and look at the St. John's University case as a whole, the massive imbalance of power is glaring.
SPEAKER_00It really is.
SPEAKER_01You have an institutional apathy that doesn't just allow toxic managers to survive, it allows them to thrive, to command resources, and to destroy careers.
SPEAKER_00All while the bureaucracy provides them with perfect cover.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And if the employee makes a single procedural misstep, the court system shuts them out entirely.
SPEAKER_00It highlights why employees must view their situation structurally rather than just interpersonally.
SPEAKER_01What do you mean by structurally?
SPEAKER_00Recognizing how retaliation is masked as compliance, understanding that harassment will escalate if unchecked, and knowing the unforgiving deadlines of employment law. These aren't just abstract legal concepts.
SPEAKER_01They're survival tools.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. They are the practical tools you need to survive when a workplace turns hostile.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It really makes you completely rethink the structural intent of these organizations. Which leaves me with a final thought for you to consider today, based on everything we've unpacked.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's an important one.
SPEAKER_01If institutions are legally required to provide a safe workplace, yet they continually choose to protect high-ranking bad actors over vulnerable employees, at what point does the HR department cease to be a human resources function and become a liability management function?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That is the fundamental question every employee needs to ask themselves.
SPEAKER_01Right. And if that is true, who is really managing the liability of the everyday employee?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell You have to do it yourself, especially before you ever sit down to write that first complaint email to HR.
SPEAKER_01Thank you so much for joining us for this conversation. Remember, that safety net you think is beneath you might actually just be a mirage. Stay vigilant, stay informed, and we'll catch you in the next one.