screenings was not compensable when we look at independent state law as your honour's are charged with today we must construe it according to how the state supreme courts in those particular states would rule on the appropriate issue that's a difficult task before your honor's but that is what the sixth circuit has prior previously announced and is what this court does when dealing with sapphire and the like that the nevada supreme court will construe its own independent wage laws separately from the f b i let's say when the statutes differ and i'd like to point your honour's to another case that was cut that was handed out in two thousand and fourteen called thomas b yellow cap and thomas b yellow cab is particularly important in this context because in that case  valley supreme court was construing whether or not to apply statutory minimum wage exemptions into the constitutional minimum wage amendment and in refusing to do so  data supreme court stated at five twenty one in that opinion then are you the district court in response reading of the minimum wage amendment as allowing the legislature to provide additional exceptions to nevada's constitutional minimum wage disregards the canon of construction express you need is the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other the reason why and that is so important in this particular case is because the nevada less in an hour and six so eight point one zero one six has specifically stated what activities are to be deemed non compensable and those are only certain periods of sleep time in zero one six the statute reads that except otherwise provided in the sleep time provision an find any and the pallies cannot point to any limiting language with respect to leaving at the end of the day and undergoing an anti theft screening that was set in place by the employer provided certain health care benefits and in addition particularly important here as well is that under the nevada minimum wage amendment there are only three exceptions to whether an employee should be guaranteed the minimum wage numerous exemptions to the minimum wage over ten which are not contained in the nevada minimum wage amendment so if we're going if we're going to look at what the district court decided and its analysis b incorporating a federal idea into an independent state law the same would have to hold true for the minimum wage amendment i e the court would have had to have read the federal minimum wage exemptions into madden's minimum wage amendment but we know from thomas being yellow cab that that that can't happen in the past claim court has already said that when the legislature or the voters in in the instance of a constitutional amendment when they decide to put language into a particular statute or constitutional provision that is what intend to do you hear of him and case law that i can point you however two particular states close to nevada and particularly in california and in washington which did do not specifically adopt the say and have when and which have expressed slee decline in court cases to follow the poor of the poor all at precisely the same reasons i'm arguing here today on the value that it underneath a particular state statutes they're independent they're separate they provide greater protections for employees they and thus they should not follow the poor of the poor a lot when there is no language in the independent statute to suggest that eliminating living in the in that case it states and less the statute in the legislature clearly indicates the willingness to adopt a certain provision i e in that case to adopt a certain exemption then then it's appropriate for the court to read in an exemption and here what we're talking about is we have numerous provisions in the in our that state that certain that an employee shall be paid for all the time they work and the only exclusion under a one six is that time for certain periods of duty means on duty means time spent working or waiting that the employer controls and that employee is not permanently used from the employee is on purpose well that our situation can be described no better or an employee at amazon facility is not allowed to leave the facility and fill unless he or she successfully passes through the end security screening much like an airport security screening the employee would clock out for from his or her shift then go and proceed to line up and then undergo this security screening of removing any items from the person regulations apply because the employer has complete control over that employee unless and until they pass through that screening and in the in the agency the terminations by the industrial commissioner in arizona they do mention that you should look to the federal regulations but only we're consistent with arizona regulations and this isn't a complete inconsistency with with the arizona regulations the part of the portal act and arizona's regulations with respect to ours working on the are diametrically opposed therefore you don't look to federal law on their arizona either concerning whether or not this provision of all hours of work as a as a justification for allowing him an employer to average out the employees wages over the course of a work week because we have specifically in the nevada regulate i'm sorry regulations and all hours work provision it's inappropriate for instance you look at the entire work week in determining whether or not someone who has has been paid the minimum wages and here is undeniable judge clay's question about what the a political case law is and for judge batchelder she may be thinking this is deja vu all over again because this is the vance versus amazon case this case was decided by a three zero unanimous panel with judge  last year under kentucky law and the law in nevada and arizona is really the same in terms of the canons of statutory construction as it was under tuckey law and that specifically is where you have a state law that is modeled after a federal law you follow the federal law unless there is some textual indication in the statute or in the legislative history that we're going to depart from the federal law and in this particular case the words that are at issue under the arizona nevada laws are work and hours worked the two most important words in both of those statutes just like supreme court had come along and by interpretation had implied a portal to portal limitation then the courts of nevada would say we follow the federal court's interpretation up federal law as applied to a similar nevada law but here it was an act of congress to did that why would we infer that the legislature in nevada would without an acting anything assume that their law picked up an amendment from congress and again deja vu all over again that was the same questions that were asked in the vance case and the answer really requires understanding more about the portable portal act what happened was that this court in the mt clemens pottery case said that there is time worked on  premises that is not compensable so you could show up for work and you're doing things like a post luminary activity or a preliminary activity and this court held that's not all preventable unless it was integral indispensable to a principal activity all congress did in the poor of the portal act well after after this court so ruled the supreme court reversed this court and said no we think any time on the employer premises is compensable and the question i believe from judge griffin to me last time i was here was with this this week does this case to rely upon a determination as to whether the portrait of poor lacked was clarification of congress's original intent were any change to the law and the answer to that question is reflected in twenty nine u s c section two fifty two cases you cited indicate that the courts of nevada interpret state law similar to federal interpretations of the fair labor standards act there's not a single case is there that says that when congress a man's federal statute similar to us states that it somehow sub silentio the state was that supreme court precedent so what congress intended was work and i was work as of nine hundred thirty eight eighty years ago meant to exclude time that was not compensable what i would see cases say that statute is modeled after the federal law and it was modeled after the fair labor standards act which thirty years later everybody understood to exclude preliminary and luminary activities so in the context of what the legislature in nevada and arizona were considering was what does the f s a provide and it was well understood at that point in time in one thousand i think seventy five in nevada arizona arizona didn't even adopt from the federal definition of working hours worked that we needed to in those states expand the definition they used the same exact words and what i would say is that mr buck is correct that a state that wants to depart from the act so so does so in california as we talk about the next argument has a has a modest departure your position is not the words of the state wants to disagree with the federal law even though it currently does in the federal law change it has to do something informative through legislation or else it's bound by a change in federal law for cars that really seems to me to impinge upon states up you know what i'm saying and i pod it's of i'm not being clear enough is that the nature of the political portal act as a clarifying amendment to say what the f l a say always meant because the supreme court got it wrong is your right then at that point you are following the congressional statute and if it wasn't a model statute like for know us to take a federal amendment federal statute and say that somehow that also amended a state law and didn't amend the state law the state law enacted in the definition of how the courts in the body interpret state you know because what we're doing is we're not columbia no other state has seen fit to include the political platell act and the reason for that is it's generally understood that the political product was just this clarifying amendment and if you just adopting the words hours or working hours six the supreme court overrules this court says any time on the employer's premises is compensable when there's been a matter of months later congress said no you got it wrong so in a period of less than twelve months the law of the land was that all time on the employer's premises was compensable you would be saying that the if we were to conclude that in the vada they intended to go back to what the law was under the mount lemmon supreme court case that they looked at a snapshot in time of eighty years and said it was our intention to pick that little sliver of time and say that's the law in nevada and overlooking the fact that to do that congress passed an amendment and the amendment not found in the only reason they had to pass the amendment is because the supreme court in one case got it wrong had the supreme court not gotten it wrong the when the been the need for an amendment and the law would have been that of the sixth circuit and there would have been no question nine hundred seventy five you want to fair labor standards act a state law on the bottom with a pick up the portal portal act as well but that could be said about every state in the country and this and i would say to you that there is not a this would be the very first court ever to conclude that the post luminary activity of security screen passing through security screening was a compensable activity if that were the case there would be have been a flood of litigation about this theory under the various st and i would point out that the reason the point of the portal act was passed and retroactively done so well is to put it into a flood of litigation that it created unanticipated liabilities when the ninth circuit in this very case when it was there before it got reversed at the supreme court issued its decision we were hit with a lot of litigation and in fact that's why we got put into a district litigation like we're in now because there was so much litigation that was engender if if regard to rounding and fluctuating workweek walls both of which find no there's no language in the statute or regulation of nevada that embody grounding or fluctuating rep weak words both of which go to the heart of how you calculate time and how you calculate the regular rate of pay but nevada's and forstmann agency says we're going to follow the federal program spent on that because that's what we did we are modeled after the federal law this reminds me of  a couple of decisions that have come down from the united states supreme court just this year both of which refer to a statute of a pattern of statutory construction i think is particularly pertinent and that is in the in the science see why am versus beaver county case and the very recent epic systems arbitration case the supreme court said that legislatures do not hide elephants in motels and here you have a legislature using the same exact words in  states as in federal law i was groped and work if they wanted to hide itself in america oh well first they wouldn't but what they would do to capture that time is to do what california did and do what the district of columbia did and say we are going to explain to folks that have been operating for the last eighty years or in this case maybe sixty years under a regime where post luminary in preliminary work was not compensable we're going t them in our state it is and there is no indication and in fact what you would find is that if if the butter arizona if you were to conclude that about in arizona intended  would be the first two states ever and i will tell you that with the exception of the district of columbia and california where i believe there's no other state law none of that has in quip or a good word for word o the mina versus amazon case so what i would say think that also in interpret in the law i think you have to apply the canon of construction that you don't want to interpret a law that when chief absurd results and that's what you would be doing here because think about this if you were asking some if you were paying people at the end of the day as they walk through a mine in my time make finish my statement if you're paying people at the end of the day this is a point that we made in the vance case  to walk through security screening we wouldn't send people to do is to go slowly the purposes of these waging our laws is to really would people pay people for money that is an intrusion on their time the interpretation that would be the first of its kind under all state laws in this country i'd like to turn over my time to final paycheck saying the final paychecks had to be paid within three days for employees who were involuntarily terminated and seventy for employees who were voluntary terminated those were the only rules on the books in fact at the time  s say with the clarification provided by the portal to portal act in fact i can tell you that as a practicing attorney and about i've been practicing for thirty one years and about i never have i seen about a legend in the battle labor commissioner take a position or in about a court take a position that work time had any other meaning than that assigned by federal law never have i seen either one advance a position that the portal to portal act clarification had been rejected by ne the labor commissioner has adopted the rounding stack the regulation which is not found in the text of the ep it was able to his adopted that and used by analogy they've also adopted the fluctuating workweek with which again is not  regulation and not a textual position in the us a those are both been dropped away analogy to help the bad interpret its own statues and in this case there is nothing indicating the work time would be defined any differently under the santa clause says we do not follow federal law with respect to this particular provision then federal law will govern that impedes upon state sovereignty impedes upon the legislature's ability to create laws not furthermore we point to one nine hundred seventy four as mean this groundbreaking moment in supposedly because that's when the kentucky law was i guess passed and recognized in vance's being modeled after the f l say by nine hundred seventy legislature and why it was important to pass these particular statutes this one happened to be in the overtime statute said there are many workers in nevada that the people in washington have forgotten the valor has chosen to enact statutes and they are more protective not less protective and we look at these particular statutes nevada we liberally construe them in favor of the employee i respectfully submit that this court should reverse the lower court's decision and reinstate the proceedings below thank you if the case will be submitted the corporate