act in some way the contract between the school and my client yes no not no the contract is whether whether the act extends to previous employees purely a matter of law and not  reinstatement with the same seniority state status two times not a back pay interest on back pay compensation for special damages as a result of the discrimination which ties back to lyme and his complaint related result of the discrimination and in paragraph one it says discrimination against the person in terms in the terms and conditions of employment so there is a big anchor on that ship idea pull pull it on board well  often followed the rule of last and proceeding also called the rule of last reasonable reference that rule says that the qualifying term that other activists criminalisation in the terms of condition of employment that that qualifier in the terms of condition employment only appointment context here but that's also not required by the statute the statute doesn't use the term employer anywhere it talks about employees contractors and agents and the robinson and  that for an answer to my first question juror what is the precise language of the statute upon which you will rely to sustain your position that the statute covers former employees as opposed to employees under section three seventy ok so and i'm going to write that thirty three discharged demoted suspended threatened harassed or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment so the first thing what it did in it it just sec potch resign right she vision allows for reinstatement of a discharge employees the statute must cover some of the former employees that's right but the difference here is and i think it clearly does cover former employees to the extent that they are discharged it also covers an employee which means to me that employee was discharged while they were an employee and it also covers employees who are demoted as an employee who are suspended as an employee who are threatened as employee harassed as an employee or in any other manner discriminated against in terms and conditions of their employment what i'm saying is different about this language and robinson is that we have this an employee who is discharged it's a present covered they were an employee when they were discharged she was not employed when she was harassed or threatened she what i'm saying i'm stuck with i'm stuck on that my understand what you're saying about robinson but this language which use the present tense verb and they use the term employee so i guess my point is i'm not sure they really considered the question that i'm asking you i see where they would say that obviously some former employees are covered because it covers discharged employee rights but so i guess that employee can't just mean it can't just mean cuts current employees but that doesn't mean that you can't construct  guy understand the briefing the conduct here that is being the subject of your claim occurred after the dish after the employees go longer an employee at all with th go now what i'm saying is here is i understand there was no conduct that occurred during the period of employment that you identified maybe you could identify that for the to activity retaliatory activity or anything that supports this theory of s c retaliation or thirty one u s c summary some thirty more importantly the issue of constructive discharge came up today or some somewhat surprised to hear cannot be read as any current employee because then an individual who is discharged will not have a cause of action it's that simple you can't read it as any current employee you cannot imply or insert that word there retaliation provisions but i don't think it matters whether title seven or this case in this situation the whole purpose is to maintain unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms that certainly would apply equally to a former employee why spanish because you would say that if you're discharged in two days later they continued to harass you either by let's say they'd call your current employer or someone you'd like to work for and say all let me tell you about them that's not  policy or something else is the retaliatory act as is the filing of the state court complaint or is or anything else beyond the well in this case against in this case it's it's interesting because the lawsuit i'm not sure your answer my question my question is what does ms pa and your client get suter and there's nothing else about contacting future employer or anything else so the so you threatened an n c a a action and if you go for it you told me you're going to do that hypothetically what if you do that i'm going to take action against you now actually that's in the type of sequence where you really can't you can't say that that proposition reaches back to threaten and harass unless you read it this way if that employee if that employee is suspended in the terms and urges threatened in the terms and conditions of employment and and so the middle two we probably should assume we're talking about one deck of cards and so that as well well i think you're right i believe the way the district court analyzed it is he a very he looked at that last propositional phrase that we've been talking clearly protect former employees because they protect against discharge and they get a reinstated rimini indeed in the turf we stand alone it is necessarily ambiguous and you have to go beyond that to take the statute to determine what congressman i think that mr gama says concession a minute ago was telling he admits that you can threaten and harass a former employees so you have certain sections of the statute that we know to cover former employees and then you have another section that can cover former employees and what robinson's lesson is is that you can't just rely on initial impressions you have to go another step deeper and look at the policy the context the purpose and all of the other interpretive tools that are available to this court to determine what that means and just briefly to to address judge moore to early statement while some of the language is that it's an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees for protected activity it's the same usury in the terms of employment no it doesn't