the court my name is valid you look cool i represent glenda bella the form selection clause at issue in this case should have been invalidated because it violated the rules set forth in bremen which holds that form selection clauses that violate the strong public policy of a forum or invalid and that public policy mandate would come from federal statutes and or cases and in this case title seven has its own specific which creates a hierarchy it states that an employee may bring a claim in one of three venue's each of which has some local connection to what happened either where the discriminatory acts occurred where the relevant documents are maintained and administered or where the person would have worked if one of those three are not met it is only under those circumstances that a plaintive could bring a case in the defendant's home for in this particular case mr de bello could not have brought absent the form selection clause could not have brought his claims in california because none of those three requirements are met nevertheless the form selection clause turns title seven value provision on it on its head because it makes the the defendant's home forum the only place where he could be in bring the claim if he had done that it would have been the wrong forum absent a form selection clause now this preference and public policy for a local adjudication of discrimination claims is also confirmed by the legislative history of title seven legislative history shows that a prior version of the of the venue provision included the defendant's home forum as one of the preferred venues and it was altered and the legislative history shows that it was altered what is that  is obviously the law with respect to where the claim would be brought absent agreement but what suggests that this is such a strong public policy that it should trump the usual rule that the parties can contract for a particular venue well again your honor that the structure of the of the statute of the venue provisions it doesn't only say where it can be brought it also excludes the home for from an appropriate venue where one of the other three is a pro is available so that that is a strong indicator of public policy that it should be brought in we're these acts occurred there's also case o your client would have been permitted to agree to forego courts altogether and have an arbitration in california yes but well it would it would have been permitted to have an arbitration not necessarily in california and i say that because when arbitration is involved the calculus is different because we also have a thumb on the scale of arbitration because of the f a a and that's discourse decision harrington and there's actually a decision by judge buckwild actually decided this case in a case called dimitri which is also cited where she she holds that the appropriate forum is arbitration but not i believe in the virgin islands because arbitration is appropriate because london but the litigants public policy argument was not in local adjudication he could not make that argument he lived worked was planning on becoming a citizen of the u k and therefore he the local that you in that case would have been in the u k his argument was however that because he no law because the u k would not recognise his local claims and because those his u k comparable claims were were barred presumption is not in rebuttable soon every case in which we get to the four martinez invalidating factors will have a presumptively presumptively valid form selection agreement and in other words we only get to the to the fo my because new york has its own special interest in local adjudication we have a here in new york city a very powerful anti discrimination laws this court held in the holic which is much more protective than the federal law and new york has a much greater interest in enforcing its own laws with respect to discrimination and california does this is not a case where we're talking about tools we also greater expertise yes yes yes your honor i mean there is a local interest here and i think that the what the cases in the legislative history bear out is that the reason for the local the for the venue provision is not simply to make it easier to bring claims which clearly that's one of the provisions as in this court's decision redbull it's also to have the local the locality be involved in in the judy cation as i was about to say if this is not a claim among corporations  about you know who's to blame for the destruction of a barge in international waters which is the bremen decision this is about somebody who lived in new york state worked in new york city was sexually harassed in new york city and then fired york city that is a is a deep local going to vindicate that local interest if i may i just would like to also just just briefly with respect to some of the other cases cited by the defendants there are records were not will first your honor the defendants did not argue that that they did not argue that provision but we looked carefully at the statutory provision it talks about relevant records where they are maintained and in ministered ok now as far as we can tell from the record defendants argued that there are human resources and pay records in california we're not sure what those are those have never been shown to us and i guess the critical answer is the defendant never raised this issue yes that's really in addition to that your honor absolutely really addition to that record is has to be both maintain and administered so let's assume that they wrote a piece of paper that said glenda bello was fired stuck in a file in california it would be maintained in california but it wouldn't be administered until he was actually for hired which would be here in new york and that's disc court's decision in flaherty which says that