brief on appeal i would like to reserve seven minutes of my time for rebuttal so i can respond to them at that time the issue before the court today is how the michigan supreme court will interpret the michigan minimum wage law and whether or not and we submit that the decision in alan that is the court of appeals decision and challenge it is consistent with convincing evidence in the statute both michigan supreme court on the alexander case that was filed in august of this year but our position is that the language of the statute and the structure of the statute is so clear that this court can readily predict what the court will do and that it should rule on that there any idea how long it takes the michigan supreme court to decide that it's our understanding your honor that that there isn't a specific statutory time period and from speaking with attorneys in michigan who are dealing with this it often takes quite a long time it's hard to predict exactly timeframe that will it might take  it would really determine the issues that are before us it may well your honor depends on whether or not it's taken on all of the issues that are there but i do think that there is there's a symmetry between the issues that are  were addressed in alexander and those here and that i would be surprised if that were taken by the michigan supreme court if it would not address the issues here we were just certified would that have some  ok well i sometimes do speak too fast so i appreciate the admission if you look at the structure of the statute one of the most important things that was overlooked by the court in alexander is that there is a provision in the position is that is it is defined in the alexander opinion the court there is only look to the definitions provision and said it's not there but it's clearly there if you look at not only the provision i'm going to direct you to but at the considered to be as the titles to just a minimum wage the in contrast to what the alexander court found there are specific provisions that follow this broad provision that talk about hourly wage rate for example the following provision which is for zero eight point three eighty four is in title minimum hourly wage rate and there it's that's forced the wage rate for regular employee and sets forth based on dates and time periods what the minimum wage rate is that's different from the other statute that says what the minimum wage is going through the statute further you next get to the provision three three eighty four anyway which deals with overtime there it says that the rate that's relevant is one and a half times the regular rate for hours over forty in a week again the provision there says specifically in subsections to this that the amount not paid under this provision to an employee who is entitle to overtime compensation is being deprived of quote defines specifically what the minimum legal minimum is for training hourly rage there is in three eighty seven rates for apprentices learners and disabled disabled persons that can be set by the administrative director there is in three eighty seven a a provision that sets forth the tip allowance parallel for the state court that you have and the have to let's say which sets forth the quote minimum hourly rate for employees receiving gratuities and most interesting lee in following up this parallel throughout the statute when you get to four zero eight point three ninety seven which is entitle production against discrimination on the basis of sex it sets forth the same kind of thing that you have under the f l s say where you have a requirement that people be paid the same amount regardless of gender and as part of that struck you again like the overtime one unlike the other ones sometimes withheld under this provision quote shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages under this act so t act and every possible place where they deal with this issue they define minimum wage to be the the requirement weight rate under the act regardless of the circumstance i think it's a good incredibly clear then when you turn to the key provision that we're dealing with here which is for zero eight point three ninety four that the only way to read that provision which again is clear in various other ways is to look at minimum wage under minimum wage law as requiring as as as reflecting the legal minimum in a variety of circumstances whether it has to do with the first hour worked or the forty first hour or worked with her have to do with someone who is receiving hourly wage or someone who is receiving tips whether it has to do with someone who is a learner or someone who is is is entitled protections in a particular way for a full fledged employee so you would define minimum wage as required wage or legal age exactly and i think that is defined straightforwardly in the first vision that i i emphasized which is for zero eight point three eight three now again it does not say minimum wage means it does not say it is defined as is entitled minimum wage and it says no employer shall put pay any employee at a rate less than prescribed in this act so i think it just spit out what you just suggested that there is a one to one correspondence between the term minimum wage and what is prescribed in this act as being the minimum in various circumstances when you ask your question about michigan  now without any mention supreme court case the issues that would be as i understand it the issue that was a trial court would confront is whether or not the alexander court and the elm court created a conflict and to the extent that  and create conflict with i mean the alexander court question does a trial court in michigan have to follow alexander as it is now i think the issue is whether or not they there follow the law that that is most consistent with most reasonable law and that's my understanding is that i'm not i'm not that that conversant with this standard clearly that's not the standard that applies to this court the standard out that although period of time true that would cause a great delay in this case in terms of this particular issue however i and as i say i think our condition is that that cheer there isn't any other that the argument is that if all the arguments are considered with regard to the structure and the definitions in the statute that there's only one reasonable construction of the statute to to look at it from the point of view i'm just pointing out to us that loosely ok yes i see that thank you that to look at it from the point of view that some test is suggested that it's just a question of whether or not it's the employer is covered and then you look somehow just to the minimum wage rates goes against the clear structure of the statute since minimum hourly wage rate is something different than the term minimum wage in the statute and it also cause anomaly in the statute in that the then you would have small employers who are under the five hundred thousand dollar limitations of the f l estate subject to all of the additional protections that are set for submission michigan law but the the larger employers operating in michigan would not be subject to those sorts of limitations and i think that that's also anomalous although i think i think the court does not need to get to that because i think the point here is that the statutory language itself and its structure provides clear direction of what minimum wage means thank you good morning may have please the court marked oscar for some tossed corporation what do you think about the idea of certification i don't think it's necessary i think the intermediate appellate court of michigan has been very clear in in the alexander case and seven o five northwest second at thirty three d l xander court disposed of that very very directly i would like to just mention this portion of the statute the council site of the moment ago as she walked through it and she got up to her weight got three ninety seven where there's an expressed mention of deeming as being part of the minimum wage in the context of the gender discrimination issue i would submit that very clearly under standard principles of statutory interpretation the fact that the legislature felt a necessary specifically say that there and not see it elsewhere support i don't i see any reason why the mission supreme court should take it up i think the two cases are consistent i think that the outcome is clear they were looking at alexander and i quote again from page thirty three of seventy five northwest second we must determine the meaning of the term quote minimum wage and decide whether it includes overtime pay they discussed it and th wage is therefore unambiguous and does not include overtime pay applying the plain language of the statute players which receive the same quote minimum wage under the michigan minimum wage law and the f s a this have been withheld in violation of this section the section on discrimination based on sex shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages under this act and say that anywhere else it's jur wages withheld because of discrimination based on sex if they wanted it with the legislature wanted it to apply to something else they should all required so they would have said it they would have said and the fact that they said it one place and says that over time compensation that has not been provided is considered on page minimum wages under the statute also all the other statutes that i quoted you specifically use the word minimum hourly wage to you which broadly is entitled minimum wage for zero eight point three eighty three and then each of the subsequent ones that use minimum wage minimum hourly wage or a minimum hourly wage rate in the language the only two that don't rest had to be considered and applied to determined whether the federal standard would result the application as it says in the application of those debt statutes would result again that's the language in the lower minimum wage for the employee so it didn't specifically embrace is the fact that all of those statues like under michigan law result in a minimum wage a legal required case came up after the briefing in this matter which clearly says that if there's a statutory definition that emerges either because it's the language that where they say this is how it's defined or if it emerges from the language you're not to look to ditch dictionary definitions or common notions of a particular statute i can cite some of those to you to the extent that you would like to look at them some of them are supreme court result of the alexander case and the fact that alexander specifically used says that it's going to look to dictionary definition rather than looking at the statutory definitions that arise from the statute and minimum wage and that has to be compared with minimum hourly wage rate which is what the examiner court seems to be referencing rather than going through my citations if you would like me to present these these those provisions that it had to be applied and then look to the provision that was being relied on by the plaintiffs that it's not there it's in it's in a different part of the federal act that deals with enforcement issues there says since it's not there you can't rely on it to deter and what the minimum wage was to let whether there was a lower minimum wage but it completely embraces the allen court the notion that these are the provisions you look at to minimum wage in any way again it's a gut level kind of reaction that that you might have in common common parlance it's internally it begs the very question that was raised that should have been considered by the court which is what does the statute say that this particular provision means