another you know employee mr reynolds was only permitted on campus to perform is reeling in related activity the parties agree in this case that there is no dispute that the public policy against sexual harassment is well that united and defined in fact new york state in europe sitting in recent years has gone to great lengths to increase awareness and protection of employees against that for harassment new york and new york city have clearly recognized the tremendous harm inflicted upon anyone who had suffered from sex harassment to suggest that mr reynolds needed at least one disciplinary warning and possibly multiple what is the public policy of college in terms of any written communications to its employees about sexual harassment and does that  decision that did not result in terminations but acknowledged that there was a violation of the school's policy have general policy and public policy and  capricious way by in effect binding this person eighty thousand dollars allowing that person to be reinstated i can you know i don't believe the standard is arbitrary and capricious i believe the standard is whether the award violates public policy and in this case we're dating mr reynolds getting his position as a public safety officer and giv did found that mr did fine excuse me that mr reynolds conduct on the date of november th two thousand and seventeen was in violation of the employer's unilaterally implemented harassment policy the arbitrator ruled that there was no  just cause to fire him because under all the attendant facts and circumstances the penalty of two terminations was too severe instead the arbitrator level the penalty of a one year suspension costing rep mr reynolds approximately eighty thousand the with the bat that pay was in effect and i for one year what we do about the time after that year after the arbitration award well i think the answer to that question problem the employer's arguments in this case for reversing the district court order overreach and asked this court to craft a needlessly inflexible rule which effectively usurped the ability of the arbitrator determine whether there just cause in the st instance further and notably at the arbitration proceeding itself the parties including the employer granted the arbitrator the board as possible latitude decide whether mrs reynolds must only be fired if a violation was found or whether he could be subjected to some this or form of discipline when they expressed the stipulated quote what shall be the remedy this employer thus seeks a decision from the court negating its  own stipulation granting the arbitrator broad powers to craft the remedy in the arbitration so this three fundamental reasons here that the district court's order should be affirmed the st is that federal courts ship repeatedly held and recently reaffirmed and several high profile collective bargaining agreement language of just cause and the stipulation of the parties and meets every standard for confirmation set forth by the nd circuit nd fundamental reason is the district court correctly applied controlling precedent and determined that the exceedingly narrow public policy exception does not afford a basis to vacate the award based on the undisputed facts here as we've several along with no question that there is a public policy prohibiting sexual harassment  workplace but the district court correctly noted that in situations like here when a labor arbitrator find that an individual has no prior infractions of sexual harassment a decision from that arbitrator ordering the employees reinstatement and explaining a rationale for that decision does not violate public policy against sexual harassment rd with respect to title mining and recent modifications to longstanding new york city in new york state antidiscrimination statutes none of those statutes or the modification is there to provide a basis for this court to toss out decades of bedrock federal labor arbitration precedent so if new york state new york city through their respective legislature and city council wanted the recent amendments to their longstanding anti discrimination statute to state that any demonstrated violation of a workplace harassment policy must result in automatic terminations the offending employee they certainly could have written those amendments to say so with regard to title nine this is been a law that's been on the books in one thousand nine hundred and seventy two so the colleges inability to of its argument that it will be in jeopardy under title nine above that if barnard really needed it security officers to be subject to a one strike you're out for rassmann policy to comport with the letter of the spirit of title nine or frankly because barnard is a women's college it should have negotiated that provision into the collective bargaining agreement at some point over the last forty years instead the standard is just cause so this court shouldn't  judicially renegotiate the parties collective bargaining agreement and usurp the ability of the impartial arbitrator to determine whether there's just cause in discharge cases so at the end of the day this appeal has absolutely nothing to do with title nine obligations that have been on the books for decades recent changes to state and city laws that have always prevented sexual harassment or the fact that barnard is and always has been a women's college and further this appeal cannot logically be about whether the district court misapplied controlling nd circuit precedent from newsday because the employer concedes that mantled had no prior infractions rather the sole relevant question is whether the employer has its exceedingly high burden on the reverse the district court and vacate the final and binding private labor arbitration award under the very very narrow public policy exception as a district court and you have  as the district court correctly and already determined the answer is none equivocal and resoundingly no i look forward to any any of the court's questions that they may have thanks very  to we have concluded the argument and we will take the matter under submission and we are a