remains and i'm not sure if the brief was clear on this point i just wanted to if it to make mention of the fact that the reliance on the value of the seventy five thousand dollars was based upon my demand letter as an offer to settle in both under state and federal law that should not have been admissible because it was an offer to settle so i keep you there after that i'm sorry what is your authority for that your honor i thought about it this morning i can submit that within a matter of a day or two i always put that on the top and i thought about it this morning sitting in the car in the parking lot and it was too early to call my office to get the authority i considered and that within a day or two i'm not sure as to your place dreams you sent in a demand letter asking for seventy four thousand one hundred ninety nine dollars that was after the the removal was based upon my initial demand my initial offer to settle the case where i outlined the amount of the damages and then the the defendant used that as the basis of saying well if i'm adding up this amount of money then based upon that amount of money then it's clear including general damages in punitive damages in the tourney fees that the amount would exceed five thousand dollars but that letter was clearly an offer to settle both under state and federal law that would be in the civil war about the offer of compromise for seventy four thousand nine hundred ninety nine dollars that proof that if they accepted that that the case would have settled for the seventy four thousand out of mana dollars with that and when that suggests that the case that the demand was more than seventy four thousand one hundred ninety nine dollars if you're willing to settle for a dollar less  obviously i believe if the case goes to trial that we will win substantially more than seventy five thousand dollars but that wasn't the issue on the removal the issue on removal is not whether or not for sure that you will win more or less than seventy five thousand but on on the face of the case at that point was it appeared to be as to the value of the case and there they have to show based upon the case as it stands at that point that it's reasonable to say that the case is going to be worth more than seventy five thousand by they're not accepting the seventy four thousand dollars they're saying the case is not worth seventy four thousand dollars so if you go both ways do i think the case is worth more than seventy five thousand yes do they think the case is worth more than seventy five thousand no if you say yes and at the end of it you know you're the plate if you think the case is worth one hundred seventy five thousand dollars but i'm willing to not in controversy whenever you have general damages there's always a question of a jury decision and once you get to the jury controversy on a contract action is the face of the contract the mountain the amount of controversy on a tort action is always speculative because there's always general damages and you can't plead the amount of the general damages or rather with your other stuff that are given here and the invasion of privacy issue  the question of invasion of privacy is is basically a nice way to say whether or not it's none of your business and they asked mr uribe two questions the first was please explain a fillet no or they asked more into questions the two major questions that were an invasion of privacy were please explain a feeling or nameless is pregnant i know hard would have answered that question unfortunately he answered it directly clearly that's an invasion of privacy the second was please confirm if you are the father and how far along she is they clearly is an invasion of privacy especially sense that they the company had a policy of not to interfere in the personal lives although zone does not infringe on the personal lives of orders owners that was their policy he could rely upon that and should have been able to rely upon that when it was already clear at that point that under their own policy he had not not a jury was right or wrong it's whether or not judge lewis is right or wrong that there was no triable issue and on page seven of the a pelleas brief they quote judge low and he employer employee relations not society at large that's clearly not a statement of law and accordingly no public policy was addition again that's not the correct statement of the law even if there were a public policy against an employer's inquiry into a supervisor's alleged dating relationship with a non supervisory employee reviews rights were not file a did because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the that the policy was that a manager could not date a supervisor could not date someone in their chain of command this person had not been in this chain of command for over ten months and all of the evidence was that he didn't they'd her until after she moved outside of chain of command that's the only evidence of their evidence that they were romantically involved for him that would not be not while he was in well they denied it so if they denied it not when it turns out the denial wasn't true well they investigated it they investigated it and found in subsequent facts proved it to you did not want to be falls no it didn't it didn't move that he was kissing her in the parking lot or prove someone said that they were kissing in the parking lot they both the night it there was there was no substantiation of that do you want to reserve your remaining for yes sure thank you very much removal can look at create litigation settlement demand letters in fact they can look at post litigation settlement demand letters which is why both the ninety eight offer and the previous geisha demand letter early issue and it's worth noting that today the only two claims that the plaintiff is trying to save in this appeal are the claims that are punitive damage enabling so if there was any doubt that what was in controversy was much more than seventy five thousand dollars the proof is in the putting that here we are today years later and the only claim is the plaintiff is trying to save the appellant's trying to save his punitive damage enabling claims clearly it was more than seventy five thousand dollars at stake what's really at issue on the substantive issue is a balance between the right of an employer s s that's true and there's no dispute under california law that the claim that was dismissed on the judgment on the pleadings of public policy violation supported by california legal code ninety six k is not a basis to go on some region where there were there was an independent cause of action for invasion of the right of privacy that was the first point right and that was dismissed that was being asked to prove it's not judgement on the police yes and then there was the wrongful termination of violation of public policy at stake of the issue of whether his privacy was invaded clearly there was an expectation on the part of managers that if you dates people within the company you can be questioned on this the policy was very clear now even they're not in the chain of command well the policy says if they're in the direct or indirect reporting line yes but the question of what i think the mistake that appellant has made is that he's relying on his response that you know i didn't take her while she was in my chain of command but what's not at stake isn't the answer to the question what's at stake is the question itself is it an invasion of employers employees right to privacy to ask questions about who they're dating and i think california law is very very clear that to vindicate to protect employees against sexual harassment that supervisors have a lower expectation of privacy than people might have in the reasonable expectation to be asked those questions because of what the policy said and i just yes we accept his version no and i guess i guess where  we respectfully disagree is that the invasion is the question itself and there's no dispute about the question we're just saying they have the right to ask any employee about their romantic life no i think that not all questions are within bounds but i think questions involving dating between a supervisor and a subordinate are in balance because look at a judge let's just point is at the time they were asking him the question she was not a subordinate well she well i'm fact i think you were correct when you challenge mr greenberg on the record when they were accused of hugging each other they were clearly in direct reporting relationship so so that just because you we understand  your point of view at the time the questions were asked you was not a subordinate that they were investigating whether at the time that she was a subordinate whether they were violating the policies that that's correct had in truth a fact while i guess it's impossible to without medical evidence and even with medical evidence to determine her true date of conception if you back dated it from the time that she was asked the question and the pregnancy began right around the time that she was transferred and the whole purpose of the question was to est timeline so your point is that they had the right to inquire about whether she was engaged in a romantic relationship with a subordinate at the time that she was a subordinate that's exactly right she had just been another employee at a different store not under his chain of command that would have been a different and the proof is in the putting mr your rebate began openly dating her as soon as she was transferred out of the store and that was not one of those facts that were not alleged in the in the complaint and in the motion for judgment on the pleadings you just look condo rules you know i was with the ball the rule i think the court i think judge lose ruling was consistent with the rules with respect to he identified the invasion of privacy as the inquiry after they were not in a reporting relationship and i think the very strong public policy of california permits that inquiry i magine the facts likely differently that this was a sexual harassment situation and he transferred her out of his district for the sole purpose of dating her and he transferred her out of this district for the sole purpose of engaging in a sexual relationship that could have bad and that's why what was decided on the judgment on the pleadings was correct because employers need the right to make these inquiries well counsel you just have to look at the well in any event that is the invasion of privacy claimants is also a subset of the public policy claim i don't think the invasion of privacy claim could have ever withstood summary judgment if the public policy claim which is  a right to privacy claim under california constitution didn't survive summary judgment so even if it's true the judge will prematurely dismiss the stand alone common law claim for invasion of privacy the result would have been the same if that claim would have gone to s the standard would be no different assessing the constitutional right to privacy claim would be no different than assessing the column of right to privacy claim and i think this case is interesting conclusion has a significant amount of public policy import my firm is an employment law firm we advise clients all the time on sexual harassment investigations and i can tell you that human resource investigators who are in the position that michelle sure was are sometimes resident to ask sensitive questions about sensitive issues and if the courts start drawing arbitrary lines that you can ask  but you can ask that i think that's not what we will be doing in this case so well i'm concerned that that is what the plaintiffs are asking for because even now the big complaint is that the question should've been asked that was the basis of the opponents argument and i i agree with counsel that employer has the right to investigate sexual harassment in this case there was never ever a claim by mr neela's or anybody else that she had been sexually harassed or there was any sexual harassment whatsoever and all the evidence shows to the contrary there's no basis even if there was a sexual harassment claim there's no basis to ask those two questions please explain if she's pregnant and if you are the father that that's so far beyond the bounds of reasonableness and i agree with with the panel that it's a trial balloon issue that's all i want to hear today is neither did i have or if there's a difference between a motion for judgment on the pleading then with others when she get past that whether there's a genuine tribal issue that well it least to get to the point where we commence discovery and show whether or not there is in fact a trival issue of fact that there's no question in my  he was dating at that time there was no sexual harassment here whatsoever everything was neutral they both understood the company policy he was a good employee he was on a fast track he understood the