because we're here on legal issues but i will make the point that rob that i was fired because his employer suspected him or knew that he was a recovering alcoholic based upon one e mail where he mentions the word sobriety we contended it in the arbitration process that he was terminated because of either retaliation or discrimination against him because of his disability the costs and fees the district judge hated the award on the promise on her conclusion that we reached the statute of limitations in the controlling state of florida and that we had only brought the case under grimoire law and the parties had agreed that florida law would apply there is an agreement that mr frank and the company both agreed to that fact made it mandatory to florida law applied on the issue of the statute of limitations frank filed his arbitration petition in january of two thousand and eleven the phillips case which he actually refers to as controlling here from florida supreme court was not handed down until may of two thousand and twelve prior to the phillips case the rule in florida was that there was no statute of limitations for civil rights also my mind is that it was after the award was issued you know or i don't remember that exactly but i think it was two thousand and thirteen when we did the work through the arbitration but it might have been that word two thousand and twelve should have because the national policy encouraging and undergirding the arbitration process according to case decisions permits arbitrators wide range of laws that they can apply to particular cases and in fact that we cited in our brief a case and mendez case which indicated that arbitrators an important law into a proceeding and so even if that vermont statute were the only statute upon which the arbitration had sued we don't know what the arbitrators thinking was we don't know what the process was because they didn't hand down a written decision and so they may have made their decision based on vermont law or florida law but the fact is that while you were you were sufficiently concerned about the nature of the the only student so the only claim for disability discrimination that could have been before them would have been the remote claim that you initially brought in would that be the sort of a logical inference of the the posture of the case at that point it might be a logical inference but in actuality i think that the arbitrators are committed to consider a broad range of legal  claim could have been before the r word or notice the word mentions the attorneys provision under the florida act which i guess could be some indication that the arbitrator thought that they had affor before them because you just spelled out in light of the fact that the for claim was put forward in that motion rejected by the over to what would be the theory as to how a florida claim was before them putting aside the vermont claim that the  arbitrator's were free to consider whatever law they felt was necessary and realistic and that the florida law was the law that the parties had agreed to and therefore it was part of that case all panel was seated and the panel was seated very early of course and after that point we could not a med nevertheless we thought it might be appropriate and useful to try to amend it at the end of the process even know it was clear to us that they were applying they would be applying florida law so the bottom line here for us is that the arbitrators need to be free to consider whatever laws they believe are relevant and apply to the case and that's what the case law says and even if the judges disagree with the process decision and the decision said the vermont law incorporates form of law and on that basis we award you know from your client would that be something that we would be down to  i think so yes or your case doesn't depend on that conclusion or if it does it might depend on that conclusion but as i say i'm fortunate we don't know what their rationale was because there was no decision and i see my time's up so i just without any sort of an explanation of it they just came out and said your client will be awarded six hundred sixty thousand dollars in compensatory damages that would have been all they had to do there could be no inquiry into the basis for their decision so yes  the reference to the statute providing for attorneys of certain certainly a pretty broad one yes that's true well what does that say that say that they were applying for a procedural law and that's what question so you say the more consistent you would be that they were applying florida law throughout if that's so there seems to be a serious stature the imitation problem but we should leave and that's what drugs are both vacated but applying florida's disability discrimination law should we then just disregard the whole stoushes limitations problem say well it doesn't matter even if they even if they made in the word when the se limitations would have precluded it that doesn't matter either from your point of view if that's a hypothetical question my answer is no we should not disregard it but the actuality is that as i mentioned before that the decision in the phelps case came down after we filed the petition for arbitration and i don't believe fields would be applied retroactively so there was no statute of limitations  may please the court i'm sandra graham and i represent raymond james in this matter i think that the court hit the nail exactly on the head the the arbitration of war is clear in the four corners of the award you don't have to go outside the work to figure out what the arbitrators did the arbitrator said after having asked the parties to reef what was the appropriate law they decided that the parties choice of law for florida law in their contract independent contractor contract w govern the relationship between the parties they also decided and this motion was made simultaneously with the briefing on which well with apply that mr hicks motion to amend his claim to include florida statutes and other basis for alleged discrimination would be tonight so they consciously decided to deny the ability to men to include florida law and they also are wrong i think that the law and other laws he  requested in the end then meant the right to add any cause of action under new york statute and under the federal statute and the argument that he could forth to the panel was the contract was either signed in new york or florida clearly not in  under mont procedural rules one of those two jurisdictions for the governing law he would defer to the paddle to determine which if any and so that all of them sort of in capsule the federal law and so the federal law should be the testified would be prejudicial to render jameson in fact was contrary to the co the code does not prevent you from amending your claim so what was being arbitrated in your view when you were spending this time overtrading something after this motion had been  understand to be the significance of the agreement between the both of you that florida law would apply that culling under grandma could not possibly bind my client because the only possible claim that could exist would have to survive under just so let me be clear i believe that florida law absolutely governs the parties relationship however the only cause of action is third it in the same claim and throughout the proceeding that started in two thousand and twelve and ended with a hearing in two thousand and thirteen was a claim for a for a mont statute there was not even sort of the you know the typical tourney drop and such other equitable and just relief arbitrators me find appropriate nothing like that existed there was one claim for the play elation of a discrimination statute that was the only thing at issue in this arbitration so in that horrible tradition all that you were talking about was what vermont law says right well we actually were counsel asked the arbitrators if he could have meant under the rules there is a procedure for amending after a panel has been appointed and the procedure is you make a motion your side gets to object if it's considered to be prejudicial it would be prejudicial for client to have to respond to and post hearing briefs there was in fact a motion made to amend the statement of claim for the very first time to attach new york florida and federal statutes we responded by saying contrary to code prejudicial we told you at the beginning of the case in our answer that florida law applied and now is not the time to  now the suggestion is that these causes of action from other jurisdictions would now be part of the case when we thought we were litigating a claim under vermont that is correct well  opportunity to say it doesn't apply because of these various reasons i get to creep in and really i get to present my case in that fashion if everything has been done without saying that the outbursts have statute a statute see and at the end of the case you now say i want it to be a because i decided that that would be better for me i am clearly prejudice because i did not have the opportunity then to address these issues throughout the course of the litigation and throughout the hearing  hearing yeah but that's not what happened apparently that is what happens around are you saying that the arbitrators or ward was based on florida law i'm saying you see it was based on vermont law i'm saying that the arbitrators did one of two things either they awarded damages to the son florida law which was never before them and therefore they exceeded their powers were they awarded it and the reason was never before that is because you're saying that the that agreement to apply for the law doesn't count as a conclusion that there was a forest that you brought before them well it was not on my basis it was not because at the very same time we were briefing the issue on whether it's going to be and then to to include florida law so there was no presumption that of course if we say the choice of no provision to support a law that means that notwithstanding what was claimed as the cause of action so we are assured it was devastating what they were deciding two things one could this claim be ed and they had previously decided that florida law governs the relationship with the parties and i thought therefore that it would be impossible to ward claim and ward on behalf of mr panic because the two were in conference that you couldn't have both in the same arbitration they specifically prohibited him from unending his claim how do we know that the arbitrator's did was not simply to say there's only a claim brought into the vermont statute here the parties have agreed florida law applies not so therefore to the extent or in any instance where the vermont law on the florida law might come up with a different result we're going to apply florida how do we know they just d during your attrition there was lengthy discussion about the nature of the civil rights laws in vermont and florida and new york and federal and we've done too many to dos issues back and forth and my sense was that the arbitrator's felt that these were generic civil rights statutes and there provisions were all very similar and we proceed on that basis throughout the process we vigorously at all times arbitrators questions the counsel's presentations the witnesses presentations was a generic civil rights statute and so you know about the questions that you were asking it was very clear that there was probably no difference between the statutes and in my studies of it and i presented this there was no difference the analysis was the same  mcdonald typical mcdonnell douglas analysis was the same as the essential what we're doing is applying the facts to the law whether was florida or vermont and course as you pointed out and i pointed out we don't know what their actual rationale was but even if it was not a clear rationale their decision still has to be upheld because of the national policy throughout the case law and throughout the statutes arbitrators are free to make their decisions as they see fit based on the evidence presented at the arbitration the record including a transcript of the proceedings report the arbitrator we have all of that on the record yes or so we'll be able to get a sense of what the byplay