i would love to start off with the helen could you please make your parents yes your honor good morning memories the court may please the court thank you very much please go ahead thank you article nine of the parties collective bargaining agreement provides that the union on behalf of itself and the allegedly aggrieved employees waves releases and just charges any right to institute or maintain any private lawsuit alleging employment discrimination in state or federal court the question before this court is whether specifically includes within the definition of agreement not only the parties nondiscrimination clause but but specifically defines agreements to include any dispute alleging discrimination against any employee based party membership in protecting categories under federal or state law accordingly this waiver language is far different than the court cases relied upon by the pallies below and the district court this clearly makes statutory discrimination claims capable of being brought under the grievance arbitration clause one further away what's the purpose of the and or since we're really focused on externalism at the moment it would appear to a reader that it could be interpreted in more than one way reading to the after you and the district court you that it could be thought to be ambiguous well your honor i would submit that coupled with the explicit waiver of the right to sue for discrimination claims in federal or state court there cannot be such an interpretation that what  issue is only contractual claims the waiver of the ability to bring a cause of action in state or federal court creates an exclusivity in the grievance or of arbitration procedure which renders the waiver me question was going to be that incompetence within refers back to this and this present the clarity but i just need to understand what your position is on and or interpretation of and or means that this clause includes categories protected under federal or state law and or meeting votes as included in the separate  nondiscrimination clause of the separate nondiscrimination clause delineated categories of primitive discrimination but the clause preceding and or specifically references contractual as opposed to the previous clause which is only statutory correct or a correct and that is what distinguishes this arbitration clause from what the supreme court referred to as a general arbitration clause which provides for arbitration only of matters under dispute or interpretation of the c v a this includes something for more than just a promise not to discriminate on the contract specifically includes federal or state discrimination claims within the definition of the grievance as well as provide the explicit waiver of the judicial form to the resolution of those planes accordingly contractual promise not to discriminate and the statutory law prohibition on discrimination are both cognize a bill under the arbitration clause and exclusively designated to be resolved in the arbitration clause well i don't have much i guess i would ask why the waiver provision couldn't test when the statute that you want to arbitrate what your honor the st issue with the and would effectively operate to disfavor arbitration the definition of the grievance in the c v a it issue in this case is virtually identical to the language which was cited favorably by this court and its footnote in jones  with an individual employee and one reached on behalf of a group of employees by the union justice scalia and wright described the standard as being explicitly stated are particularly clear such a waiver one operates by general or less an explicit arbitration clause as i've explained this is not the typical arbitration clause which only talks about disputes under the agreement it  not clear and not understandable yes but that is a good question the either of those provisions the explicit waiver of the judicial forum or the specific definition of a grievance twin clude state and federal law discrimination claims in of itself sufficient to constitute a judicial waiver under the case law specifically references protected categories under favor federal or state law being within the definition of agreements and that is exactly the type of provision that's been held to be a waiver claims into the agreements definition would be sufficient arbitration clause goes further though and also says those claims cannot be brought in court either of those clauses standing alone clearly an unmistak states that discrimination claims must be brought under the contract and must only be brought under the  contract to get back i believe i got sidetracked to get back to the question that the panel posed about listing the statutory claims one of the point i didn't want to make is selection provision to interpret broad language requiring all state or federal claims to be insufficient with disfavor arbitration and put it in a let's favorable category the morning we're here after this panel to a firm the lower court ruling that a collective bargaining agreement issued did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to bring a private lawsuit in federal court discrimination and that clause and when any protected categories under federal state law is there another reading but that the cause in hand to cover   well i'm not sure that i understand your question your honor well i don't i'm trying to figure out if it order for this not to be as expensive as you i've been there you assert there the argument would have to be that there's some group of people  or some category of posters that are not covered right but we're we're talking about a category of discrimination that is not captured that may be your honor but i think my concern is just the agreement is not compliant with what the law is regarding how you properly bring any federal or state claim will discrimination based on membership in any protected categories on the federal and state law you substitute this that includes an indisputable as in discrimination in violation of title seven  only an agreement to arbitrary claims under the contractual prohibition on discrimination and not statutory claims st that argument contractual nondiscrimination agreement is blocked by the fact that there is no such cause of action that the disc or claims goes the way an employee cannot sue in federal court for breach of a union agreement because that claims already preempted by thirty one dollars of the labor management relations that that's been held by the supreme court as well as this court lastly i'd like to briefly discuss something that none of us have mechanism where the parties can hold the grievance in abeyance until that administrative exhaustion requirement is completed but then when that process is concluded it indicates that the party have agreed that they that claim cannot then be pursued in court again the district court's interpretation of the pallies interpretation is bull lied by the fact that the administrative agency process and the administrative exhaustion requirement is not required for contractual claims nor is there administrative agency jurisdiction over contractual so the court's interpretation an appellate use interpretation would further read this provision group of provisions out of the c b i and the fitted it is not a permissible or reasonable interpretation of this line i'd like to just briefly address that the standard here is an objective one it's whether the language is clear and unmistakable the definitional phrase in dispute alleging discrimination isn't just defining a category it's in compass saying within the grievance the dispute itself all of the cases that i've cited have held that is another kind of to a waiver in addition we have the explicit waiver of the judicial for and that can mean nothing else because as i've said the only claim the district court purported to claim that was intended to weight is a claim that can't be brought in the st thank you judge maybe judge quarter anything further want to thank you for accommodating our our new world of doing the outside of the courthouse and we wish you and your family the best as we go through this national crisis thank you