that this is the type of case that is appropriate to the public interest exception or meets the public interest exception because there's not a definitive ruling as we are in a pool in an airy injunction stage and that this c disputes actually with this mandate and charms of what has happened during her different years at high school and got access she was given and and granted and not so there's actually a number of factual issues that circumstances have changed she cannot be put into back into high school p e so that's the issue that sound appeal so the issue of damages presumably really continue to go forward in the trial court said that's not me but i certainly concede that that issue has to be litigated yet but that issue has to be litigated after a discovery process and both sides right putting all their information and for the trial court to decide first whether damages are appropriate or not based on a multitude of factors including i do say the statutory interpretation but other factors as well which include whether or not  mid day has proven any harm or any jamma just have occurred to her and that all of those issues that may appear before this court on appeal after a decision on the merits going back to the  intent of the legislature the legislature or the really use different language in two different provisions secondary schools were not even in the statute originally in the public accommodation statute there was a list but denied access to the locker room and the department of human rights after a thorough investigation dismissed her charge for lack of substantial out of that town the district had not discriminated against her council how can th accommodations and schools in that jurisdiction over there would be limited to those three areas simply because it's limiting the jurisdiction of the department of human rights  bullying and so so are you saying that if you were to take this route of bullying somehow that's the equivalence of feeling and equal enjoyment why out the second one and say that is the equivalent of four when the equal employment when clearly the statute is just saying these are the three areas where the department is different language and as we know the jurisdiction of courts is the same as the jurisdiction of the department so one derives from the other and the reason there is very little legislative history from three dollars there's very little legislative history on these provisions in that act there is one statement from senator kyl attend a ballot ryan to leave most things to the department of education   the rice there really isn't guidance so that is a wry we're going back to the principles of statutory construction which is to ascertain and give it back to the intent of the legislature we never got why the legislature includes particular language in one section but it said in and out there that they presume the courts have to presume that they acted intentionally in doing so and that you know the general assembly just not put in and there is no reason for the legislature to include denial of access to facilities goods or services and run a two point two if they simply match the  enjoyment so it was always listed under their definition of places some public accommodation which is right one hundred one is just listing the places of public accommodation  but it was always said it was only in regard to the denial of access days councell has made comments about the trail preservation of the statute and what the meaning of access says and how this for the last school districts to return to the era of jim cro laws basically or single out and discriminate against other students on a variety of basis as we pointed out in our brief there are in fact massaquoi other laws both federal law and state law that protects students from discrimination on the various bases backhouse all mentioned but there's also an acknowledgement that there has to be that school districts are different than other places of commerce listed made for example for students with severe peanut allergies they are segregated in a cafeteria because they cannot eat in contact with other students eating peanuts know i'm not no i'm responding to you b comment from counsel about people with disabilities and how they are treated in the cafeteria if it is really medicinal purposes like that for the allergy in fact they may have human rights act and the illinois civil rights act in place i mean frankly that women to entity is listed as a place of public accommodation clients are not listed as a place of public accommodation under the human rights act the fact that they are limited just is it is that it does not apply to many many places of public accommodation it applies to particular ones that are listed primarily places of commerce it was never intended to be all encompassing the legislature harmful to the students that they are pretty sad and the district strives to balance appropriate facility access for transgender students for the privacy and safeguard for all students the district has twelve thousand students that is responsible for so it's not just miss midday at issue here it's also the interests of all these other students and the students are minors the first hundred fifteen sixteen year old girls and  representation that she would change in private changing styles with the locker room she had locker room access the office of civil rights the prime of education and agreed so that arrangement that is the arrangement that we are providing here the department of human rights also agreed we were not violating this act when they investigated classicists lee this resolution was with the department of number of decisions now the third circuit just did to actually certainly not taking positions relating to transgender students that are contrary to the concerns that you're raising distinction between se