plaintiff has failed to show prejudice is issue was fully briefed to the district court the district court declined to reach the waiver issue and for some of the reasons some of the issues on the threshold questions i don't think it's appropriate for the district court to do it but had it reviewed  court that those are life issues and could be considered i don't think they've been properly presented you know like now i understand that the district court did not reach this but why doesn't the record support a finding that you the court has just presented but other issues regarding waiver when other issues well for example issues of whether the claim for arbitration that was made or the presentation of the claim for arbitration that was presented w believe as part of this record is of his brown the appellate initial claim or demand for arbitration that was submitted to dollars that's that's the document on which deal it's made a decision that we can all question those are issues the district court cannot reach their issues for the arbitrator to reach and in any event the record before the court here does not support a finding on those issues the army  in our view and it would under any of the principles of what is or is not a threshold issue those waiver issues are central to an issue that they close to the arbitrator as opposed to the core horse supposed to decide is there an agreement or is there not mcdreamy and is a cover and then move on from that and decide issues about the fence as to the agreement with waiver and breacher a few d h in our defenses the practical consequence of your position though it seems to me that i actually don't know what the actual consequences are it's not the consequence of had what happened here the telly did pursue or claims that the place that we think there was no prejudice that resulted from the fact that that that there was any  possibly be you're not saying that it's going to cost her no more because you made it out in federal court and now we're going back and going back to the arbitration or are you that this can't be an article reimburse for the extra cost for the extra st underlying action during the pendency of this appeal the district court did finally admitted in our supplemental excerpt at page one fifteen that the plaintiff that isn't as brown the apparently was responsible for the bulb in the time that it took to between july or october of two thousand and two and april two thousand and three when she finally brought a claim that she was responsible for that the way i'm sorry the district court did not find that that's have to be substantial there's a heavy burden of proof here there are other cases where there's been all kinds of late and extra costs incurred in which the court did not find sufficient prejudice of the united computer case la communications we cited two cases that i think are particularly on point from the second circuit not from this court that p p g industries case in the lever tech case i can't sit here and say that she was not the way one b that she didn't spend an extra dime or a dollar more than the point is that the legal standard is much higher than that there's a strong prejudice against finding prejudice under these circumstances remedy in fact she has a claim in her complaint about dillard's approach to its arbitration program so there is a remedy within her complaint to recover under those issues that claim could be adjudicated by the arbitrator and she i clearly do i would submit to the court however that all of those issues are issues for the arbitrator under the first options lines of cases and not the stand your ground because all of those issues are pro create issues to be dealt with  by the arbitrator secondarily the district court has not reached those issues the record is not complete with respect to that is very little evidence at all with respect to the breach in fact this court does not even have the claim i believe i believe this with ninety nine percent certainty does not even have the claim that allegedly led to the breach there is just the allegation that she submitted the claim which we concede and there is that d no the this these issues comes to you with respect to the findings of the district court on the issues and i suppose this court does have the power to look at other facts in the record to find an alternative basis to uphold the district cour each of the five have been met this court's decision in ingle is completely distinguishable that's one of the issues the court found on the district court found on the seventy five dollars filing fee that was found to be sure one could reach  have a single exclusion that says it's delivered can't bring a claim and injunctive relief claim to prevent unfair competition or theft to trade secrets that's the only thing about this that's unilateral in favor of dillard's allegedly there's no plane here obviously involved in this case the facts what happened but there's also probably a very little instance where that kind of claims going to be brought against a sales associate i think my client would have made it didn't need that and that is no longer in its current version of the rules with putting all that those issues aside but the natural move i don't actually buy an employer of against employees in trade secrets that's probably true i've heard that stated i think that's generally true some courts have stated that there are others we've listed in a footnote in our brief several other kinds of claims employees do bring and i do bring those on behalf of them so i know them to be the case but it is true that's the most common can claim not one that's brought here not one that's likely to been brought here but more importantly compared to the other claims the other cases which found a lack of bilaterally all of those cases involve restrictions that apply to all claims in other words limitation of remedies and all the employee's claims a limitation of the statue of limitations and all of the plaintiff's claims in the interesting lee in the two cases that are found by latter ality not to be a problem in the photography case arbitration agreement and in employment contract which had an arbitration clause in this case you agree with that is at issue is a standalone agreement every turn is about the rules of arbitration or the guidelines everything that she was required to do file a notice of intent to arbitrate and then she gave a statement what she thought her claim was she paid the fee and she sent it to  a and she sent a copy to dealers according to the rules that was supposed to initiate the arbitration process when the dealers refused to participate she their legal offices and at that time they told her that she had no claim they would not arbitrate she could not arbitrating and she had no rights she should just go home and leave them alone it's at that time you know she thought that there was no further options for what she did she assume that their legal department knew the law and that they were correct in saying that she could not fi the arbitration without their cooperation and then aaa also said that there wasn't anything they could do for her so she was she was working under the assumption was she filed the arbitration and demanding that the agreement was enforceable and this is what she had to do in order to have her  wants the court look at the issue of whether if there was an actual agreement where they considered the contract to be a contract of adhesion because it was presented to her and i take it or leave it basis she had no time to study it and it was it was her understanding that she would be fired if she didn't sign the agreement at the time factors that they looked at and that i would like to present to the court because the major issue that the agreement demonstrates and village behavior illustrates illustrates that it was you know their own and unfair in the manner in which the con the party rights were determined for example in the rules of arbitration this your you will now have the right to have your claim heard there is no such similar language giving dillard's even deadlines there is one statement and give a time a date for how they have to act and there are no negative consequences if they don't get so basically there's nothing there is obligated to do under the agreement that they carved out of an exception for dillard's that they wouldn't have to arbitrate those claims but miss brown has made seven thousand two hundred claims about unfair competition and they argue the fact that it's the fact that she had to pay it all to do it is it's problematic and the fact that there was no corresponding parties and demand payment which would put pressure on her to have you come up with thousands of dollars if she wants to proceed forward with their pain or they can just suspend the series and do nothing which will force you to come back to court and one final point on the ground but is that the fact that the court the lower court has already looked at the decision and made it made of the ground zero one of the main points of the gravel was the fact that they wanted to insure a task and speedy arbitrations to make sure that you conserve time and money and the fact that in this case she's already had a decision on that we would just be duplicating effort and waste in the courts resources and the  struggle with the graph i think the grampa fails to reach an issue because it did not have to reach the issue with respect to the difference between the determination of the making of the contract the determination at section four of the f a a requires we argue that she waived it with respect to whether there is or is not an agreement which is actually curiously connected to my point here but that's a different issue than whether or not it's unconscionable villar hypocrite if it argued that the