is the one rodriguez the year on us for very much the same reasons we believe that the order compelling arbitration in this case should be read worse force than foremost because it is inconsistent with the fellows say and it should be the non bill nature of our policy rights the second thing you determine whether or not arbitration adequately protect those rights or might result in a loss of those rights not will result but might result in a loss of those rights here in this case even antitrust claim there's no nothing wrong with that but if that very same thing happens in f l a sic case where you can not be indicate your f r c right because of course the supreme court has never said that is proper in fact the only supreme court case dealing with arbitration in the on the f l a say rejected arbitration for very much the same reason under what we now call the effective indication that right so they may in i think you go back to the point to me and the main distinction between this case and all those other cases is that we're dealing with the f r c in this circuit as well as the high court f r c is a uniquely protective statute you can't waive the rights by accident by burdening people's ability to exercise those rights all of those something else they're claiming you have a situation here where parts authority in michigan that logistics i think they are distancing themselves from this point of this and we were not part of it they're not claiming to be part of the agreement the wasn't obviously and if look if they want to say look i we were joint employees and therefore we'll invoke the agreement we might be fine with that we don't mind having them join employers in a case we can't have every which way especially in the f l a say which does not recognize a stop well as a means for the nine people liability here going back to the the by judge frankly nine hundred fifty nine so that is a major problem if you might be able to stretch that in a different west we don't have to prove anything anyhow we're going to arbitration come hell or highwater we can't work that we are patrician contract as they claim should be placed on equal footing without a contract and if that be the case if you're invoking a stop will satisfy the requirements of becomes whether there's anything special about the way that would distinguish it from many other statutes where the supreme court said you could arbitrate claims whether that's a risk or the gilmer in each of these cases the courts examined said what is it in the statute that says you can't arbitrate a case and there's nothing there and we know that it's plaintiff's burden of proof to come forward and say this is what the f l if they says why we can't arbitrate a claim we also know that the whatever you want but there was no arbitration and baron team in baron teen several union drivers brought a contract claim saying the contract entitles me to wages and then when they sought to bring that claim in court the the company said well no you're b by that because you've already litigated that and never really came up as a question of whether there was an arbitration under the contract because they didn't cover that language of the supreme court in that case and the other cases  suggested very strong leave it at that time the f l as a was be treated as a separate case as a different case now whether the fact that it's a different statute from these others is enough to make out in the face of the f a a be argument that's a different one but but there is certainly a long history of treating v f l estate as different from others that well  court that's the court now is different because if you look at fourteen penn pasta pirate purses fourteen pounds pasta they narrow baron thousand very much to the idea that involved in a collective bargaining agreement and he union's attempt to waive the president but i do think you're bound by sutherland which said that f l is a claims are all that i've already addressed that issue and you know it's not enough to say well they said you could waive or we're going to arbitrate the claim because you brought  where the court said well we might not agree with some of them but it is the law of the circuit and they felt bound by it as this panel was bound by that decision which compelled arbitration now if you ask me what the f s a and why is that different than any other statute i don't know let's take a look at it one there's myriad exceptions to both to over time at the minimum wage claims under the apple i say you could be in some industries like newspapers or farming or recreation where the f s a doesn't apply i don't know how that uniquely protective it also sets a minimum wage that is and if you get enough money that it's complied with it also so if we look at the the two early spring court cases are all those good the fact that there are some well you have to look for her but even this spring court cases which said you can't waive a right was not congressional intent because we if you look at the form of the portal act it said well we're going to overrule those cases at least allow you to settle those claims so it was the supreme court was not looking at congressional intent and what the f l say was intended to do was put more people to work it was a depression area depression era legislation and it said don't you can't you must pay these people more so that it's  incentive to work more than forty hours i don't think that's uniquely protective i think it's just was one of the first pieces of social legislation that survived the supreme court challenges on constitutional grounds and since that time we've had dozens e your honor in terms of the effort to say i know mr marks very well really to give him a lot these arguments were rejected by the supreme court and this court many decades ago and what i see it defense attorneys they supreme court hearing toward record arbitration when ever they can well i don't think so i let me tell you why the supreme court has been very good in f l as a cases a lot of these f l as a case of the go up they were nine to zero  and i think what they have shown is they will stick to precedent they're not going to upset sixty seventy years of precedent even the conservative members of the court are usually loyal to the course president in this area and as judge calibrations said we have to deal with the law as it is not what it might be who knows what the law might be who knows what tomorrow will bring nobody knows that but the the law as it exists as i keep pointing out there's one supreme court case dealing with arbitration on the d f l a say and in that the court rejected arbitration and the reasons that it's or important and those reasons apply with equal or greater force in this case counsel mention the and we we did argue below iran and that these parties never signed this agreement and are not part of the agreement and are not even claiming to be an employer there's not an issue here your honor that we haven't addressed fully and that is these workers are transportation