maynard at this time i would like to reserve three minutes for a bottle of course thank you your honor this this case presents two issues the first is whether the district court erred in affirming the lower court's determination that the appellee misl charge of violated the virgin islands wrongful discharge act the second issue presented is whether the district court erred in affirming the award of backpay your honor i think the problem in this case apartment of labor as well as the district court found that there is no standard no rule by which to determine the reasonableness of an a reasonable and lawful order of the employer now the facts in this case well the factual finding was that did obey mr maine ards order to sign the check in the form of a it was a receipt in the form of a check to verify that she had been paid her salary in cash however the courts the lower courts felt that the order was unreasonable because mr byrd needed mr maynard signature on the check in order to verify proof of her income for a public assistance program namely w she was boisterously refusing to sign the check to verify that she had received the equivalent pay in cash that she never did provide mr maynard with the wic form stating that that she needed proof of no no it wasn't not at all in fact the check had the date that miss leibert received the money she received the money on september thirtieth that had be all the accurate deductions for that particular pay period as well as her net pay judge gomez's dissent yes we do and and we believe that the problem in this case is that the lower courts create a new standard by which to determine the reasonableness of an their opinion they suggest what the standard is to determine a reasonable employer's order and that it is then that is an order that instructs an employee to perform some type of administrative or work related task considered this in the context of the requirements and needs of the whip program as opposed to looking at the nature the very essence of what mr maynard had instructed the employee to do which was to sign a check in order so that he could have administrative bookkeeping you know it was a receipt it was merely a receipt and therefore i know that the superior court had mentioned that the method of payment could lead explanation as to how that could be especially in the context of these facts and that it really was merely a receipt that mr maynard with asking it was a reasonable order and looking at it in the context of the requirements of wik especially in a case such as this where ms leibert herself testified that she never told mr maynard i never gave mr maynard the wick form never never suggested to mr mann art that the reason why she wanted his signature on the check prior to signing the check was that she needed that for that for the wic program well your argument is what is irrelevant isn't it isn't it isn't your argument that the beginning and end of this inquiry is is it reasonable to ask your employee to sign a receipt if the answer is yes then that's the end of the case absolutely that is my argument if the answer is yes then that is the end of the case is the part and fine and that's unreasonable but your honors i'd like to refer the court to volume two of the appendix of page one seventy six in which the wig form states that miss leibert could have verified her proof of income through a number of ways through a current statement of gross of the most gross most recent gross income from the employer and also the most recent w two form so miss leibert in a fact did not need a mr maynard signature on that check that receipt in order to verify her income  before the partment and that was before the department that was admitted into evidence the way  e before the department yes it was raised before the department no excuse me not that if that if she was not raised before the department and the reason why it was not raised was because the  because that evidence was not admitted during the hearing the department of labor considered back pay according to unemployment benefits that received however determination especially because according to the virgin islands code if there is a stay or a continuance in a proceeding that's the period of that stay or continuance is deducted from the backpay and in this case there was a stay which resulted in an approximately six year delay of the matter and there were two motions that were filed by the respondents for the  does not consider that in its opinion so most definitely would have to be remanded but of course we're arguing that the decision should be reversed all together because it was a reasonable employer order bronner's i see that my time is up furthermore there can be two permissible views as to what has happened in this case one trier of fact looking at the evidence may say that in fact miss leibert may have made a  reasonable request however when you look at the totality of the circumstances all of the evidence that was presented a reasonable mind could find alter to that opinion and that's what happened in this case the mrs library had explained to her employer that she needed if this was going to be the verification of her employment and the receipt she needed to be signed by her supervisor or the employer and program which she had informed time poor him because he refused to sign the receipt the negotiable instrument instrument or the check that did not become one and he refused to sign it which would be not bow it for her been working for him and have been an employee for almost a year and had no other way to verify her income at that particular point because of the fact that they were using a process of having the employees to sign o promulgated in the role for discharge act and they therefore govern wire where the burden of proof comes from and it is c v i r twenty four zero zero three zero zero six hundred seventy seven dash fifty seven seven days fifty nine states burden of proof the respondent which is the employer if you read the previous for that seven seventy seven dash fifty nine actually prescribes how the burden who who has the burden of proof in these cases under the wrongful discharge act if this under the administrative hearing setting which is due the department of at pages one thirteen two one fourteen there was information and requests presented by the legal representative of cheryl martin leibert at the hearing in regards to a determination of reinstatement and back pay with a certain amount and that amount actually stated minus the unemployment compensation after that point the appellant raised the appeal these unemployment insurance to the hearing officer stated that it would be verified and the appellant responded ok we argued that at that point that should have been a signal to the appellate that he should have raised an objection no objection was raised at that time we also argue that as far as the back pay award goals we wish for the court to look towards the collateral source rule we do feel that in terms of what has happened in this case although the a pill levy and the claimant at the here in actually asked to be reinstated back pay mommas the unemployment insurance compensation that that is contrary to law code if they're successful the employer has not met the burden of proof and is deemed that they were lawfully discharged pursuant to the statute they're entitled to restatement a back pay we're only arguing that the back pay of the answer to that question can be found in volume two of the appendix at page fifty one in which miss lloyd indicated that the only time she ever claimed to have an inadequate record  that that if any of his employers asked him you know to submit information or for information or proof of income he had provided them to them but that in the instance of miss leibert she had not made that and that mr maynard refused that is absolutely not correct in fact the testimony was quite to the contrary the testimony was that at the time that miss leibert was boisterously refusing to sign the gave mr maynard the wicked form that she felt that it was none of his business so we're arguing that the work for him actually is irrelevant to the determination of whether mr maynard order or instruction was reasonable but if the court does consider the needs and the requirements of third parties in determining whether or not an employer's orders is reasonable or unreasonable i think that that's something that should certainly be taken into account sign as a receipt miss leibert argued that she wasn't going to sign the check because his signature was not on it and it was an invalid check while it was not an invalid check because it was merely a receipt at that time in fact during the during the the department of labor hearing mr maynard states several times at the very first time that he was made aware of the wic program public assistance was at that hearing and at no time before was provided the money in cash of the previous day on september thirtieth with a copy of the check so when mr maynard approached her the question was you know you've received the pay in cash would you please sign the