and insults that she endured from her supervisor. In particular, Fuchs stated that her supervisor suggested that Fuchs “realize [she is] broken and go on disability.” Fuchs claimed that her supervisor has questioned her repeatedly about the length of time she requires to use the restroom, and has limited the times during which Fuchs may use the restroom during the workday. Fuchs testified about other actions her supervisor has taken against her, including questioning the volume of work Fuchs completes each day, punishing Fuchs for tardiness, denying Fuchs’s request for leave to see her doctor, and requiring a note from Fuchs’s doctor before allowing her to wear tennis shoes to work. Fuchs testified during her deposition that she believed her supervisor’s remarks and conduct were “in ) (<HOLDING>). Here, viewing the facts in the light most
holding that a statute is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly holding that as to allocation of burdens it is not material that the facts of the case and the causes of the collision are peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents  we are not aware   of any ground on which such an inconvenience can affect the rule of law which governs the rights of the parties internal quotation marks omitted recognizing the purpose of crossexamination is to enlighten the jury as to whether the witness actuallyas a matter of fact knows the general reputation of the defendant and to place the jury in a better position to pass upon the credibility of the witness testimony holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that it is peculiarly the jurys function to pass upon what would meet the requirements or satisfy the mind of the theoretical reason able ordinary person which the law gives to the jury as a standard by which to measure human conduct