and reputation in terms of statements made to him and about him specifically statements made to him concerning his race and so the emotional distress is the component of of statements those are obviously separate from the corporation if the corporation had more stockholders for example if i were stockholder i were a white stockholder in a corporation the statement made to mr mcdonald's would not have the same impact on me that it had on him would not have the same impact on my reputation as it would on on his reputation so the question really statute itself the language that you've seems to be in terms of contracts for the individual the contract the corporation contract here would allow mr mcdonald to to prevail and the only way that could happen is if the rule that says you can have individuals damages didn't exist they're really not different for first amendment cases they read these some instances where there are certain relaxed standing requirements but this isn't one of these cases involve overgrowth analysis or whatever the question is does the party have a specific individual ised damage that can be addressed redressed by the by the court what do you think happened here in front of judge nixon was argued was going as ar i was not at that particular time so i can only judge from the record which is the same record that you have and gomez doesn't appear to be very much in the record so you know that may be possible but even if twenty standard and address that particular issue is one that i really can't comment on because it's a bit of a surprise to me but it seems very clear here that that is an analysis that needs to be made in order for any kind of order to dismiss an issue however it was and so here we are arguing at this particular point if there are no other questions  the actual injury you have to make sure the plaintiff is the sorting his own rights which i think goes to that test the general rule we're talking about what's going on is brought to the attention of judges i guess looks through and no plaintiff did not in the e record don't have the motion but plaintiffs did not cite gomez in fact what plaintiffs argued under arlington heights seventy seven u s supreme court decision that a corporation does not have an control is going to shouldn't control the case because the third requirement the third prudential limitation on standing is that the complaint has to go to the zone of the interests protected by the statu emotional distress because he was denied employment as the head of the emergency room and that was his individual claim that he had an employment there and the court said that the employment claimed the connection doesn't have to be direct here there is only one nine hundred eighty one action it is only being brought because of the contract between j w and dominoes we don't have that same type of situation if he is claiming mr mcdonald is claiming that he has emotional distress it is just like in the guides case in the tenth circuit the emotional distress arising out of the financial loss to the corporation in his complaint he even court said that there was the employment claim that dr gomez had all the other cases and the purchaser if it's been clear on you're looking at different when you're looking at a one thousand nine hundred one case you're looking at something different from a nine hundred eighty three assuming as we have to that this was a racially motivated breach of contract by dominance because they didn't want to deal with blacks that in the course of that  damages because it did the jury consider her claim in addition to the corporation's client the guy's case i think it's directly on point the gomez case is not because it looks at a different type of contract the contract you look at this contract this contract was different from the type of contract involved in goma that provided for and ploy meant of the individual plaintiffs here it does not guys it's directly on point and if we look at the general rule if we if we take the second point of standing as you only have to assert your own rights he isn't and i would have to judge mr disagree with you that he's got his own claims b claims here are admittedly derivative are as a result of the bankruptcy now he could have brought an additional additional state law claims to address the issues that you're talking about if he if moment and fourteenth amendment rights that were violated by the city in that case the first amendment right i think is the most obvious and you also point out in that decision that they had state law claims for and election of emotional distress made to mr macdonald about not wanting to deal with you people or whatever wasn't about the corporation it was about being a black man very clearly beyond that in terms of go interfering with an individual's employment opportunities with another employment while i could not do so with respect to employment in its own service when i was a child to have his title seven claim to strike on the merits the same is true for the latest claims under section last case was very well mark thank you