without pay us a internships are more available to students of higher socioeconomic status which serves to limit racial socioeconomic diversity went so far to chip away at the protections of section seven of the and a lot because according to the board our actions exclusively advocated for non employees mentioned once in the board's explanations to the part of the board does not even attempt to extend the posture from east texas from supreme court  circumstances surrounding kwang statement as it is required to do under its own law specifically the board considered the fact that miss one responded favorably when she was a st approached about the question paid internships at amnesty that she immediately leveled with the employees and telling them that if there was any if there was a shift towards paid input internships they would with and misty's employees that she immediately raised the issue to the executive team which was meeting that week in order to arrive at a decision on how to proceed in the for signing the petition but she was embarrassed and disappointed that she didn't have the relationship with staff that she wished she had or that she's got that she had that it would have been very helpful to know about the petition head of time so that she could have worked with employees to understand why they were ultimately so frustrated and disappointed with the result and also her suggestions as to how to proceed in the future so as not to be in the  of basically miscommunication that resulted in dismay by employees after what's she thought was an attempt to address their concerns and reviewing all of those circumstances and missed one statement in that context the board found reason will employ sitting in mr us position would not have found that those employees expressed anger or betrayal or anywhere any accusations of this loyalty or were threatening in nature but rather that they expressed disappointment at how things had gone on frustrated at the to handle the situation in a way that would have prevented this kind of concern on the part of employees and attempts to resume prevent that kind of  that kind of intimate from occurring again in the future so the board came to this finding as i said in making considering all of the circumstances doing its due diligence as required under board law and under the act and it's finding that mr ms funk statements been violate the act in any respect we submit completely disposes of this case now the board also considered the fact that the  had decided had found the internes were employees under the f l a say and the board felt that it had to address that problem that issue because it felt that the l j had mistakenly come  come to that conclusion and so when the board with the board did was an analyze the employment status of interns however before i go in there i would like to point out that all of mr girard challenges to that section of the board's decision are either forfeited for way mr gerard who was with represented by an attorney before the board should have raised those challenges to the board itself rather than waiting until now to raise them to this court he could have done so in cross exceptions responding to amnesties exceptions to the l g is deficient he could have also done so in a an answering based on the street exceptions he did neither his counsel was not asleep at the switch however she actually filed a motion to strike just using sections on procedural grounds so he had counseling counsel was the board and therefore was preserved however mr girard did not make any argument on this particular issue he just mentioned it in his opening for if you did not cite to any case law he did not cite to the record and therefore we submit that that argument is waived under fox and other d c circuit law so in summary we have before this court what is left is the eighty one dollars issue whether miswiring statement violated the act and as i've just explained the board recently found recently concluded that they did not so based on that some of the exceptions so i let a list all of the instances were all of my arguments were brought up during the course except for one and the one that was not brought very detailed that there were four violations committed by the employer through the statement and these violations were documented by witness statements by literally and audio recordings of the relied on one man's rationale which is that his activities were not covered by sixty seven dollars that's rational contradicts with the supreme court and the boards on precedent and