the the issue in this case is whether or not under the arizona civil rights act my client manwell lopez exhausted his administrative remedies and what was unique in this decision is that the federal court in granting summary judgment and determining that my client had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies rely on federal law and deferred entirely to title seven  exclusive jurisdiction and what constitutes the proper filing of a charge and looking at that statute forty one dash fourteen eighty one under arrest regulations excuse me the there's a ninety time discriminated against must contact the e c r g which is a primary phone interview and then the a c r d makes the decision at that time if they're going to set up an actual sit down time with the complainant and the complainant can show up at that time so forth any documents they have and they complete the initial charge of discrimination that triggers the running of the ninety days and subsequent to that and under the arizona admin title ten chapter three article two they set forth all the procedures that the e c argy can go through everything in it is permissive in the sense of what the parties must do except for the obligation of end of ninety days the charging party the offended person has the right to go directly to court and that's distinct i think from the title seven statutes because it says at this point in time here's the end of your ninety days you can go request your right to sue and take your claim directly to court and that i think is a distinction and in that regard i think arizona law is different they haven't set forth any other armies yes administrative remedies if he failed to participate in good faith because i don't think you can sidestep that there's a good faith requirement for everyone to participate in due diligence but i think the ninety day time period set forth in the statute impl office which is set forth in the record there's letters and communication with them it just was one of those this is my a part of my argument i think this is a question of fact on the client's good faith portion was one of those strange situations where the client had given the correct information on the charge as to his nailing address but everyone including myself interpreted that to be a post office box a us post office box rather than a mailboxes that cetera no communication with your client then during that period easier to saying hey this isn't for me this was actually for charging party i think there's a mistake there we're just it was a mailing mess and that's the other part of my question my position to the court is i think that creates a question of fact even if this court is inclined to say that the ninety days isn't a limiting time period under the statute my client has created a question of fact as to what his good faith some notice to the client i agree with you there it i mean there's no there's no question about that but i think that once the court and everyone else was made aware of the fact that even join this time period we aren't able to get our hands on this guy he didn't make an appearance there in the ca until december the fifth isn't that correct that's true that's when you first notified and when did the ninety day period expire well the charge of discrimination was filed in august and i'm trying to take a look here in august any communications between excuse me between say december fifth when you appeared yes and december seventeenth when the ninety day period expired was there any communication to you were to your client from unless you have any other questions f court my name is laura but you and i represented produce exchange to answer a couple of questions let me first car five point we're not talking about ninety days in this case we are talking about one hundred eighty days as an investigative period the reason is we told come here come to mediations notice he was asked whether he was failed to do that he was required to do what was it first and foremost to respond to that request when the when  know they didn't well the correspondence was going to the right address the only one that seems to have been returned in the file is the final correspondence from june of two thousand and one as you'll notice in that letter that the address was properly there is a possible outcome a possible remedy the party should try to exhaust that particular avenue and we should not make light of the fact that a potential revenue without the letter he could have gone to their door every day  forced the hand of the agency what what you're seeing here from the from the appellant is an effort to essentially reconsider the decision of the a c r d as far as its decision to dismiss the case for failure to because they did not cooperate with with the agency and a big difference i think you know judge thomas question goes right to the core of the situation what difference does it make if one arizona law on the federal law none we end up what i see him as a standard letter that goes out as soon as the charges are filed that says are you interested in participating in mediation so how do you get around our decision in charles versus here in which we say  to cooperate if it occurs after the statutory period doesn't matter those are completely different cases charles versus garrett is a situation of an actual employee of the federal government where the difference that you have in that particular case where you're trying to confine the rule to clinton's only involving government employees but what that hundred eighty day rule in that particular kind of case is based on the fact that it is initially the agency that's under that there needs to be an administrative decision and what you have also in that particular case is after was a thirty day rule for the o c who handles the appeal only not the actual administration of the charge to actually proceed with the charge and for the party to then f but you cannot have equitable tolling when you're not proceeding pro se in addition there is no misrepresentation that's being made by the arizona civil rights villain all they're trying to do is to get some information from mr lopez and from counsel from mr lopez and  scheduling eight post statement of position interview of the clerk was that that's from march i believe of two thousand and two march from two thousand and two correct and i think that interview was set was could you point in the record to me where that letter is i'm not sure exactly whether it is actually in the record or whether you are referring to i'm asking you what which letter did they send to him where they asked for specific information and you just again i as i was mentioning to just tom and i were not necessarily a material fact in this particular case because we're not talking about a situation where the party after one hundred eighty days made a request for a notice of right to sue the party then proceeded contacted the very day after the very day over receipt of that particular letter contacted the agency to find out where the actual meeting would be set up with a b at the agency counsel's office and then blew that meeting was a no call no show when that i'm just being very briefly the one issue was the that the court asked about was this letter sent in september asking mr lopez to appear for mediation and i wanted to direct the court to