respectfully submit that the language in the collective bargaining agreement falls far short of a standard enunciated by the supreme court and that is necessary to effectuate such waiver and certainly doesn't meet the bright line test language the no discrimination provision discusses and lists all the characteristics protected by law that are part of the no discrimination provision and it specifically says any claim by an employee of what it's what good morning your honor is may please the court my name is just going to cat may represent be a pelleas but the district court correctly determined that the c v a contains a clear and explicit waiver of mr lawrence right to bring his statutory discrimination i agree judge rieckhoff that the right case is really the governing case here and justice scalia describes the inquiry as whether an ordinary textual analysis shows that matters beyond the interpretation of contract terms are subject but one of the things that the supreme court said in right was at the very meant there was missing a contractual commitment for the employer to abide by discrimination laws here we have that and no discrimination vision states that the employer shall not discriminate some additional language i think the term dispute is broad enough and other courts that have looked at causes like this one on there aren't any in this circuit and on that point talking about fernandez fernandez the no discrimination cause actually does make a reference to laws to characteristics protected by law to violations of two applicable law to violations of federal state or local law so i think that makes the fernandez case fundamentally different from this case because compliance with laws is a contractual commitment here i think disputes under this provision refers to any claims that a law was violated essentially and so for that reason i think it's clear and explicit and i think it takes it outside it fundamentally distinguishes this case from right and in right the court looked at certain other factors and noted that those factors would militate in favor of a clear explicit waiver  mention statutes average worker a lot of my fee is actually something that more clearly expresses that laws are at issue here than the word statute and the no discrimination provision doesn't say that only the union is going to  arbitrate these claims as has any disputes under this provision whether they're individual disputes or whether they're the union's disputes are going to be subject to arbitration and then if you look at the arbitration clause it says that's going to be the sole and exclusive remedy so tying all these have cases where none of those cases consider a c v a like the one message issue here so i'm not sure how those cases could opine on every other combination of language that might exist out there in the world actually know your honor we don't there's nothing in the record about that and so i i heard accounts counsel raise the issue of the union and the realty advisory board having negotiated this agreement actually i don't think there's anything in the record to indicate that the record whether there's a chorus of dealings that would support a few clues in that these claims should be litigated in court and i don't think that that would be obese is to reverse the district court on this record we rea i think that the phrase applicable law is modifying all of the terms that come before it however even if it weren't it's clear at the very end that any discrimination on the basis of any characteristic protected by law is the employer's obligations describe characterised that  i think that's actually exactly what the court in right was looking for and the court in right pointed to a different provision in that c v a which he gave as an example of something that was clear there was a provision there that's in the parties agreed to be bound by the many many requirements under illusion that is a very broad statement there and if that's clear enough for the supreme court this is also clear we're talking about an entire subset of laws here all of the anti discrimination laws and what r requires is clarity not narrowness so in that regard i think that this provision is something that if it were to ever reach the supreme court would fall more under that part of the analysis language together there's nothing different between our agreement and the agreement and writers have the same phrases the same language about talk about talk about law is no difference between our case and rogers and  to to judge jacob's point the language in our collective bargaining agreement the reference to the courts of the clickable law i think the only plain reading of that is to needed for disability my my speculation on it would be because as you're aware the disability laws don't necessarily require you to not take action against somebody disability for example if they can't perform the central functions with with