your position is that even though your client could have brought a title seven clane and even though the federal government has now for decades established a comprehensive and pretty  elaborate structure under statute and regulation for people who feel even the victim of employment discrimination to bring a federal crime under title seven and with that structure requires  they can come and bring exactly the same complaint and they're ok that's the legal position of got that the university employees as a class are the only group of people in america to this is not a this is not it hey i didn't get into the graduate program because of the woman right this is a i was the night a scholarship because i'm a woman this is i didn't get tenure because i'm a woman and because  because i'm on such a woman that's the those are the allegations and what you're saying is that employment discrimination uniquely in the country but congress and meant for university employees to have a right that nobody else in the united states of america has and that is the right through the administrative requirements of title seven and still bring exactly the same claim that's the pitch isn't it but it pitch program bay they didn't mean to do it in a harmonious way because we're really saying is it that in setting up at once set up statutes at within close temporal proximity to one another so kosky case though i mean fundamentally do you believe that there is some value to the administrative procedures that exist under title seven and do you think congress had to see such values to have included them in title seven in the first place well i think that congress didn't do that and when the amendments came up pertaining to educational employment k he doesn't deal with the legislative history and i don't think he could i think if congress wanted that it would have would have spoken and i would also add that title seven in title nine do not overlap in don't overlap in toto but in but in your reading of it they certainly overlap in this that a plaintiff can can just blow off the timelines of the responsibilities that go with being a title some claim and bring the exact same cla passes two laws with two different statutes of limitations and doesn't say that one preempts the other no i do not agree that we should act i think that would be acting against the will of congress congress actually had the opportunity to pretty strong argument on the other side just to spell did granted it's dissent but it's a pretty strong argument isn't dissent that the legislative history doesn't read the way the supreme court majority read but that's neither here or there right because he was a dissent and and the north haven majority said they were prepared to imply a prior right dashon under title and that was that's a win for you for sure right because it shows there is some kind of private right of action under title nine provides and pertinent part no person in the united states on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in be tonight the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any bell we imply a private right of action but has to further say we also imply that that private right of action comprehends an employment discrimination claim right but i would say that it must comprehend and employment discrimination claim that the united states supreme court has taught that this that this is a remedial statute that it sweep is broad but the way we construe remedial statutes doesn't by itself gets you past the goal line in terms of what this language means can you point is to any case that has taken language akin to similar to  benefits of a be subject to this nomination under any education program or activity you think similar to that that has been construed to include employment yes yes your honor i think that the best place for that is the recently decided case and winner versus and state university in the middle district where there was a comprehensive reading of both the judicial history and the legislative history and judge computer of said i am persuaded that of congress intended for title seven to preempt employment discrimination claims on for title nine it could have drafted title ny which was enact after title seven to state as much instead title mind was drafted to cover any person not just any student and therefore doesn't need cover employees alleging claims of employment discrimination  public schools right and jackson comes after all those comes in two thousand and five does that help it of so how well i think that justice o'connor in jackson said that and here's why we have a wonderful guy in the jackson opinion itself which links us to the viability and then franklin and then later jackson does it really great the supreme court marches steadily toward saying what mr leader is saying which is we're ok with the supreme court and reading title r title seven we are a new case with the notion that there is a private right back center title mind that it covers employment discrimination retaliation is just one variety of discrimination and it's all good and if there's an overlap there's an overlap we did that johnson so what what's wrong with that right a discussion hears in a discussion supplemented on my bed by the fact that aside from a cost me who did record of appeals who have addressed the question us march no because i think there's also the fourth circuits case handed which is a preemption case it is much more recent than those cases so there are district court cases sometimes memory not being what it was and i use i like to go back and listen here with the who are so had to say and if you're not talking to mike it will pick up just so conor in jackson sights wow reverses presidential pinion its own circuit it had to follow the preemption yet at the same time it wanted to find retaliation for a coach complaining about the same thing but the coach in birmingham board of education was complaining about jackson that is that his girl's high school team was not being treated fairly under title nine here the difference was that coach lauer just team was a apply how they do that so we see your your legal argument is that it's this is so carter meant to distinguish employment discrimination claims  other than retaliation for complaining about violations and she meant to do that without saying it but she had to do it we can tell because she cited the earlier case which  approved the fifth circuit case which distinguished made that retaliation for opposition to title nine noncompliance is not actual under title seven heads not preempt that now while our does tell it all out and we caught you certainly spells out preemption very well so in the fifth circuit there is a co a coherent cogent body of law that when applied to jackson would explain it away as a preemption case that's the best i can do but what  discrimination case because they're just very different things the bench the language is vastly different titles or is a vastly different step to from time to my quote these are these are different th so we're not going to say one implication we're not saying one preempts the other but to a different stuff well the problem with that is i can look at it in different ways and and judge taken bottom opinion is tight and consistent with his circuits later decision to our yes yes the title line is very different it's much more capacious than title seven it extends beyond unlawful employment practices but the question is that was true why do we prevent people from using title seven in conjunction with title and section one nine hundred eighty three and just walking into court and say it's a mighty federal statute that's violated it's title seven such make a bottom bo ignoring title seven and letting h h s go off and regulate employment stuff here as if as if title seven didn't exist that was a i was a heck of a good argument and it turned out to be a heck of a good the said and it was at the set it's two supreme court decisions that we have not read the word about this morning however support me if they're reading a very broad i don't say yes a slippery rock university supports slippery rock university if they're read in a very broad way no federal employee and there are substantive rights in addition to title seven no federal employee can complain about employment discrimination from title seven that's a problem of course is the general services administration and the other case which comes from pittsburgh is a great american savings and loan association vs not viney and they say that  even though it's a civil rights civil war reconstruction you're statute the conspiracy statute of section one hundred eighty five sub three that that statute cannot be utilized for employment discrimination circumstances where the supreme court looking at i don't know why is a rattling other types of claims to crissy whether it's rather it's johnson or whether it's says you can only go under title seven if you're a federal employee the makes you believe it has application here when title a title seven or a conflict i recognize your honor that it was a question but you pose the question of how can you privilege these people uniquely for their employment discrimination why is it any more hurtful than employment discrimination against a postal worker for sexual discrimination why why is a postal worker required to go through a balanced careful comprehensive structured remedial scheme which puts a great emphasis on on the by the supreme court based on it's it's a quartet of cases because it's not a trio anymore of canon bell franklin and jackson well ken bell franklin and with the exception of jackson a canon bell franklin and fitzgerald are all cases that really do not have anything to do with employment discrimination they have to do with the other aspects of rights against sexual discrimination entitle my athletics education things like that private rights of action for the students so that the state should there not employment discrimination cases the close one is jackson and i would say to you that those cases that here's where it how i read all the district courts the prevention district courts say how can we just allow all these people be easy wro easy road to the district court we can't everybody else has to use a yossi you should do now on the other hand they say this does not say you have to use the e e o c this must therefor framework yes title nine has a preset requirement that notices given to the alleged offender this is you should read it and the supreme court guesser has read that in as it implied requirements for private certainly that's a way of logically and legally thinking about things but then i would go back to judge the bottom bottom analysis of the current congressional history and say originally when they sat down title nine was supposed to be what filled a gap in title seven that didn't exist but the equal employee equal opportunity act of nine hundred seventy two which is titled on beat the title seven in a way that made it redundant were no longer necessary yet clear from the way the house and senate this gus the law originally when it originated that they would say let's put this title nine out there it'll in title seven so nicely for non employment related or do employer discrimination in also employment discrimination in federally funded places and then subsequently that gap was ameliorated in title seven anyway and then a couple months later title nine was an act so we have that history too so i think the problem with with history goes back to what chief justice marshall said when we all started and that is you know one searches and grasps that any possible way of understanding what was in the mind of congress when it  amendment is a provision banning second discrimination and education programs receiving federal funds the amendment would cover such crucial crucial aspects as ignitions procedure scholarships and faculty that jackson is distinguishable jackson does not mean that all employment discrimination claims are open under title right it was a very specific and limited statement that i retaliation claim is uniquely suited to title right it could have really been raised by the students themselves under titles and that makes it special so it's different and it doesn't cover it doesn't have the extent that you you because because there are three types of preemption there's express preemption which we don't have from congress there steal preemption where one rock totally covers the field of the other law we don't have that and there's conflict preemption where the operation of one law would would impede the operation of the other so this is the settled law of preemption through all federal jurisdiction ordinarily it selves as a matter of statutory interpretation does it make sense to retitle mind to give the right to your client but she was certain it does with that is background what's what's wrong like sho the hole in his assertion that jackson can be distinguished in the way he just attempted to distinguish i don't understand why it is distinguishable i think it's consistent it's consistent and you don't let's let's leave  preemption aside you still need the the heart of all these cases is what is the intent of congress and and the united states supreme court has already determined that th a faculty implying that it has read the legislative history you know i know senator biden is not there that the principle well maybe he is one of the principle people but he's not all the people but there's no contradictory legislative history the staying away from the from the legislative history you just said the supreme court has said it supreme court he said it applies to the point of discrimination rather than jackson is there a case that you rely on to say that the supreme court has think there's any basis for what we are calling reaction there is an opinion by the attorney general in this case i don't think it's been vacated either in the law there in the federal fascinating issue we thank you for your help and to take the matter under advisement with that we're going to take a five minute