waiters employer we believe we should apply the the broader sense in that case a court in the s police claim that this case should not be considered at this time because they didn't believe it's proper we rule we argue the contrary that this is the only issue presented before the court is should the  is the exhaustion remedy that they realize that most of the cases were being dismissed on technicalities and it was their intent not cases should be tried on the merits and that is what we were seeking well this complaint is very similar to the to the other cases that we were seeking the piggybacking and that's pretty much the same complaint and the little bit i'm just saying your complaint doesn't speak to exhaustion so just might look at the price of the complaint since it was never amended it it's never going to address exhaustion of matter what because it was never a minute so is the outcome that you would want here is that we  just doesn't address exhaust what we really we addressed that issue and on a motion to show cause and then we didn't believe it was needed to amend on that particular aspect so did the district court think if i heard you right that you were asking for the broadest view in other words the fact that any other employee of the restaurant filed a complaint with e o c regardless of what we know about whether that complaint the o else yossi made any reference to classify discrimination you can piggyback on that claim is that what you're asking us to adopt yes that's correct but in the pacific instances of this so you're not no company you're not making any argument here that you could fit within a nd of the three variants that you identified no i'm not making any arguments and would concede that it would not apply yes ok because they  result would be the same since it's we're talking about only one plaintiffs the court should adopt the broadest rule is maybe i missed understanding the record but i thought the district court referred to the complaint the court complaint that the other plaintiff filed rather than to the opinion rule i don't know i thought the district court only was making reference to the complaint that san diego filed in court not to the charges so i can't i don't have the record that clear with d me i know that it makes reference t know it's in the brief so i'm that's why i'm so mean that it's also on the record and sixteen so i you know i believe that things that are this cost in the in the in the case law you know matter of all actively participated in the in  theory they're not willing to settle they're not paying attention to this thing that's not the case in this case that the facts in this case really are not the best cases they're not the best facts for even consider the big we were going to allow this up to this if we were going to allow this i think we should move into the class the middle the intermediate test the the person has to problem thank you would like to extend our appreciation to all counsel for their arguments this morning thank you so that its arguments for today this session of the honorable united states court of appeals has now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting