ok i think we're ok thank you the police the coroner john williams on behalf of herman pushout like to say at the outset that we are limiting ourselves in this appeal to just one issue and the one issue we are pursuing on this appeal is the lack of jurisdiction in the district court why what what there was no claim by the plaintiff that his rights under federal law were violated that's right and you had thirty days to ask for review and and of he was pro se during those we're telling you that that wasn't so well likely is absurd number number one it was not plausible for anybody to read it as being a title seven came out because there is nothing in the complaint or in the amended complaint that in any way references title we would expect that lower to tell us right away you you you would but the fact is that lawyer that parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction and if you told the court you told the court you wanted to get under title seven  you you argued for the title seven points with specific reference to title that was that was in response to the summary judgment motion that there were two or three references to title seven you bought not by me but my associate did it and she  was mistaken but i submit that mistake is no worse than the mistake that was made by counsel for the defendant in explicitly representing to the court in a removal petition that this action had alleged violations seven when in fact it did not and indeed if you look at pages seven zero three and seven zero four of the joint appendix you will see one has to do you want to spank your adversary and s and then he still i'm not as what difference does it make that your that you adversary made me it means assuming that you're right and i don't think you are but even if you were right what difference does it make that you had for sorry said something that she didn't have the right to do the point is you're the client that the lawyer for your c is a jurisdictional prerequisite and as far as we can tell from the record here none was ever filed and that's why i really asking the court to take a look at seven o three and seven of how to how was there on a right to sue the two letters from the c h r row you will note that they reference only c h r o docket numbers whereas the practice at the c h arrow is if there's been cross filing with the e e o c they cite both docket numbers and th fuses one of the reasons why there is no jurisdiction is when there was no that doesn't say that that was one of the reasons i said that that is further evidence that there was no e e o c complaint filed and that's different from whether or not the e e o c issues a right to sue letter there was so far as i can see no eat o c complaint if i remember this suit was not about wrongful termination as counsel for the defendant herself points out at page two of the joint appendix all that mr pre shared complained about was harassment during the course of his final years as a faculty member indeed the complaint and the amended complaint specifically say at the time of filing this lawsuit there is now pending a terminations action so this case isn't about wrongful termination it's about harassment on the job and that was something about which she complained only to the c h r o so there was no federal claim made and i think it's most unfortunate that we all missed it but that doesn't give the file this case was treated from day one as though at worst claims under title seven as you've noted when they have a pro se plaintiff as he was at the time that he filed his complaint those case claims need to be r liberally he had actually filed an initial complaint that we did not remove because it was so on clear what it was what claims were being brought the case was not removed to federal court until he filed his amended complaint in august when he specifically referenced that he was filing it pursuant to an ego see letter that allowed him to bring the claim in another forum at that point that is when we determined that it was most likely bringing federal claims and we removed it to federal court t think i said in his amended complaint he specifically referenced that ido see a letter authorizing him to bring the claim he didn't just reference a c h around a letter allowing him to bring the claim he clearly pled facts here that made a claim under title seven the plaintiff and his attorney treated this case throughout the entirety of the case as though it contained title seven compliance and them from the time we did the national roll twenty six after point filing all the way through some re everybody agreed that this had title seven claims on it at this point the plaintiff should not be allowed to turn around and say no that was a mistake i didn't mean to bring title seven claims and this should therefore go back to the stay court instead of federal court in let me here and let me have it heard over again i would posit that this is similar to case law that supports the proposition that a plaintiff has complaint contains both state and federal claims at the outset cannot withdraw the federal claims after the complaint has been removed to federal court in order to defeat that federal jurisdiction just as this court ruled and touch concepts inc first assault partnerships that plaintiff should not be allowed to form shop by removing those federal claim but only to treat with state case issues or whatever is another matter where you could remain and so forth but then it would it would be a strong argument that it would be wrong to deal with the federal issues therefore it needs to be remanded to state court would be a large and justice at this point i have a lot of time left being that we have women at our arguments i do have a question about the abandoned issue i would so the defense and defendants named here in the by the pro se complainant with the city of hartford and hartford public schools and the district court decided that the proper defendant was only the board of education  yourself i believe in a deposition as counsel for the board of education and responding here and filed it the city filed an answer in which admitted the allegation that the defendant was his employer without mention of the board of education  written decisions he was to conflate the board of education in the public schools and the termination notice that was received was on the hartford public schools and yet you took the position that it would be prejudicial to the board of education for an amendment to occur i mean albeit the judge would have to be vacated there lot of reasons why one wouldn't do that at this stage but i was struck by the repeated in consistencies in these cities slash public schools slash boards filings and i wondered if you could explain to me how that could happen sure i am and actually whether the districts decision is correct on what we did we do believe that the says that yes those are statutory rights of the board of education the board of education acts as nation of the state but at the same time the board of education acts as an arm of the minas a palette as well so i didn't see it's quite so clear cut as you made out in your brief encounter can't this the board does sort of have a dual role because in some ways they act as an arm of the state so when the educating children when they're doing their core duties that the state constitution requires  state to provide education to children and then they have delegated that to boards of education in those situations where they're hiring firing teachers things a deal directly with students then they are acting as an arm of the state and other ways they act as an arm of the city so when you're hiring maybe a janitor are when you're hiring things when you're buying pullet paper when you're doing those kind of things that aren't directly related to students they do indeed sometimes act as an arm of the state but it's very clear  statute that only the board not the city has the right to hire and fire teacher also the connecticut supreme court has said that the professional and nonprofessional employees are employees of municipalit not if it doesn't go against their duties under the state constitution so there are times when so it's a conflict but they they have aligned roles that they do it times how are you c education's budget the board of education's budget is made up of numerous things certainly some federal funds some state funds some city funds sometimes there are other funds that get mixed in there but it comes directly out of their budget doesn't come from to dismiss you didn't raise until the summary judgment motion is that right that this might have been wrong defendant i didn't believe that that was something that was appropriate for a motion to dismiss because if you take an honest face he stated a claim he stated that this was his employer we don't believe that's employer we believe that's a factual issue you know that was a factual issue and he got it wrong but we didn't believe that that was something that could be the basis for a motion to dismiss to be filed over so no we did not found motion to dismiss we didn't feel it was something that was jurisdictional and the termination notice that he got was on heart heart for public schools letterhead correct it wasn't high for a public school call letterhead but if you look at the letter it specifically says that the hartford board of education voted to terminate your employment and if you look at the records i don't think i don't believe that document is actually in here but they were actually voted out at a public board meeting where the board of ed itself voted to terminate his employment i think your honors very much mr williams you of again i think it's it's in some ways curious that so much effort was expended by the defendant in addressing the terminations issue because it terminations really wasn't part of this lawsuit and  think that's been clear all along the other thing i wanted to address briefly was the little rule twenty six f statement on the subject of jurisdiction you will note from the between counsel for the defendant and me at the time that i was called upon to take a look at what she had prepared was the schedule i think it was reasonable to assume that when she represented that the  jurisdiction that it did and while i understand that court feels that it was reasonable for the district court to give a broad reading to the complaint i still have to say that the allegations of the complaint really d that difference well it seems to me that it makes a difference because the issue of harassment is very different from an issue of terminations and all we're talking about here is a resident and that deals with workplace conditions in connecticut has taken a rather different position about the limitations on workplace harassment than the than the federal court said which is course the right of the state of connecticut to do thank you very much thank you for your arguments that we will reserve decision our final