specifying the amount of damages or require that a final judgment include all other damages to which a plaintiff this untitled the plaintiff is no longer the master of her claim she can't resort to suing for less than a jurisdictional requirement keeping her case in state or a state law claim in state court where she wants to litigate it clearly wants to litigate it because she is specifically set free complaint demand letter that she's only placing sixty thousand dollars in controversy which is what m it's not now and the in this case she did not only did she do that but then post removal she filed an affidavit once again stating i do not have any i have never intended to seek more than sixty thousand dollars i had no intention of doing so in the future i've no desire to do  recovering again so all of the cases because there are two thousand and eleven and then district court cases kentucky district court cases no six are cases where the courts have considered host removal the counsel for the appellant has focused primarily on the affidavit that he submitted in an attempt to avoid the remains the focus however purse should be on the complaint that machine filed in this case and if we look at the point at the complaint in particular at paragraph thirteen and the complaint she would seek damages for lost wages and benefits physical pain and suffering emotional distress requiring plaintiff to incur medical treatment and expenses for the thing in addition and complying she makes comply kind pardon me not only for discrimination and retaliation under the kentucky civil centerline and in addition there have been two other district court cases that have been decided after the briefs were filed who in addition to the legal authority included in the briefs there too and other cases that have been found one would be th fourteen u s district lexis fourteen zero eight western district of kentucky january seventh two thousand and fourteen the case was reminded based upon the plaintiff's post removal fifty lation stating that plaintiff will not seek or accept damages in accepted damages attorney fees in the fair value with any injunctive relief there's also been cases decided since then in which the plaintiff attempted to include a post removal figuration limiting damages but in which they were and actually see what she stands in her affidavit that was filed in connection with her motion to remain and she did not use the language of any of the cases that i have shared with the court in fact her affidavit is human and act as if i agree with you wholeheartedly judge not on the issue though is if you read her affidavit she states that she does not believe she was entitled to recover seventy five thousand dollars that she was never told she could recover seventy five thousand dollars that she never asked her tourney's to seek thirty five thousand dollars to settle her claims in that she told her attorneys to make an initial response to a discovery request she were to ultimately say that consistent with the complaint i want my emotional distress humiliation and embarrassment damages and in addition i want my attorney fees and if she were to provide a calculation that were more than seventy five thousand dollars which you likely would be under those circumstances to defend it in that type of situation would be in a very difficult position because in most cases are at least in hundred cases you would be further going to hear out from the time period that a complaint would be piled and that would create an additional burden and a catch twenty two for the defendant far better than to try and establish by a preponderance of the evidence what the damages hunk were at the time of the  when we look at the district court decision green in summary judgment to me and spun based on the waiver that we signed i would first to break the court's attention to the language of the waiver and it's now and there are five factors that should look at in determining whether or not that waiver was valid and forcible but i think now that if we look at the document we see that it is a one page single item one page document it clearly includes at the top and the bottom please read before signing it says that it's important to use its common language that in layperson with understand it right above the signature line or the employee eat it says i have read and understand and people understanding the document so in this case certainly we have a prior case law from the circuit that indicates there's nothing inherently reasonable about a six months when the statute of limitations and certainly within the district court in kentucky we have multiple examples own cases where the courts have upheld shouldn't actually have limitations provided that the shortened statute of limitations were injured into knowingly and voluntarily most recently in the bone mass case we have a situation where the sixth circuit glad to have limitations and they initially stated right out in front that there's nothing inherently in reasonable and i'm sure in statute of limitations although the sixth circuit we want to say that such a patient sense of limitations couldn't be applied to the particular claims at issue for other reasons you know in this case if we look at the five factors that one lets look at under the more certain versus circuit city case we look at the players background her education her experience and fun provided the signed waiver that she had executed and me she offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding her background her experience or her education and it really she confronted that if we look at the standard every day for the definition of voluntary volunteer and if one were talking about this because here this that's correct your honor and there's nothing you know the law is clear in kentucky as well as in many other jurisdictions that an offer of at will employment is sufficient to support a number one of agreement and in fact you know this is exactly what we're talking about here and there's no dispute over that back in fact the affidavit that was supplied by ms she found that she understood that she had to sign this document in order to be employed by the company with respect to the next factor in the analysis and that we have to look at the time period the person has in order to review the document and again in the affidavit although she said she understood that she had to of understanding it and i think that that really does and can any type of argument on that point we didn't want to the clarity factor that the court considers in this case i suggest to your honor's that  while i can't claim to be a master craftsman i do not in vision any set of circumstances where i could have crafted anything that would be more clear than the one haynes single document that was at issue in this case and the next factor is the and she drafted that document there was no authority at all so it would be unfair if you will to judge her affidavit based on standards that did not exist yet she  there is so low specifically says that the damage of computation is not true based on speculative claims that aren't even asserted by them but it's going to happen i also want to point out that this was a one count complaint under the kentucky civil rights act the other assertions regarding pain and suffering those are actual damages that were included under that act so there were no tort claims here there were no punitive damages and the case is that there are cases that allow a post removal stipulation but again those are all district court cases and th say is that you need to memorize this document because you will never see it again she did in this case she was presented with that waiver as part of an application with a packet of documents she would never provided with a copy of it she would go and ask somebody what it meant she was never they were just taken from her and where the the bigger issue too is that she was never given a copy of it upon her terminations even though the defendant knew that she had a viable sexual harassment claim because it just might hurt the person who was responsible at the very least totality of the waiver you did another way bridges know she she didn't remember that she had signed a waiver three years prior she didn't even know what a waiver was and she was never given a copy of it as i said so she couldn't possibly comply with it here unless she literally memorized the