cases in this was not a hostile work environment case and in our opening group in our required relief we cited a number of cases even work environment all of the council council indicated which would be relevant that banks had to hold up well you have until the end of the months to decide which of these two options you would like to select now if that were true that might told him that he had quote time until the close of business to decide if he wanted to go back to swat or make a voluntary transfer he was told on march th that he had until the close of business to make  parole mr hold up on you know on march th that this was his choice he made his choice and he communicated it on that same day he had noticed the statute of limitations purposes that the transfer was  alex made these factual findings and i would also note that mr pulls up words and filing written exceptions that's why the sport does not have jurisdiction over this question and you know real st transfer the question is when did he know about it these are not separate instances of alleged discrimination or incidents it's the same incident the question is when did he know so i would say that he knew on march commission have not even had an opportunity to review this is just a recommended word or by the administration of logic and it makes good sense to have to go to the commission and seek review there were coming to this court if th otherwise the support would likely see dozens if not more run of the mill statute of limitations questions coming straight from the l j going to this court without that review process of the commission i would as representing the state respondents the commission doesn't want that novel overview if something has happened that it doesn't agree with and the recommended order it that has the opportunity to correct it before coming here to the score so it doesn't benefit everyone to have the rule stay as it has a few file written exceptions you can have it reviewed by the court if not unless you're challenging the constitutionality of the statute or one of the other exceptions of fl file a written exceptions and so the court said since no objections were filed with the human rights commission no issue was preserved for review in the take case the petitioner did file a written exceptions related to submitting additional evidence with written exceptions and so the court said we're not going to look at that additional evidence because you didn't submit it before the th so everything in the petitioner states is completely consistent with there being no jurisdiction  because process was available there is no due process by which you know circling back to the statute of limitations question and as i've stated the deferential review to the administrative law judge all of these factual findings there is ample evidence in the record supporting this finding that mr bowles awful knew before april st that he was going to be transferred this is not a legal determination and even if it check and in the nd amended complaint in the federal as the plaintiffs allege that they were quote transferred to broke patrol suffering a decrease in wages seniority and benefits now course that happened for mr all that fall would fly the law for egypt retaliation under federal statute is exactly the same issue as it is under the commission and we don't know who's been where her who's been helping the effort to make the showing in the burden