board by way of diversity with the seventy five thousand dollars threshold and i only want to make one comment in that regard because i would like to reserve the story of my time to discuss the preemption issue with when a court goes through and makes the decision as to whether or not there has been a meeting of the threshold of seventy five thousand dollars for damages there is to be summary judgment type evidence it is not clear the washington law against discrimination has to has to do with the state police power and our states are united states supreme court is specifically stated that there has to be a clear conclusion that of congress had wanted to extend thanks it could have done so and it did and so it's from that you extract the late ok the banks aren't exempt from that but what about is washington the extent that we're talking about eighty or title seven but if it goes beyond doubt because different states have different takes i mean i know for a fact there are things you can claim california that aren't title seven are not  are you know that's a state if it were gender preference or something along those lines ok so it would seem to me that your fast argument might be that very well be the case in this particular case still and all i can do is argue that the end of the fact that we have before the court on this particular case it is strictly an age discrimination case which is under the  also under the washington iraq against discrimination and there is no difference the floor is the same there and so to say that perhaps there might be a difference in a california case where the law provides for greater rights to a particular employee and now would be something separate than what is considered here i think that what we have here is strictly  preemption there and that is no such thing here and therefore in the it is appropriate for this case to be allowed to go forward because there is no preemption and when you to others there's a real strong public policy argument against you know i mean in all the employment cases talking about when you hire people you know when they're at will or at pleasure or anything along those lines that that that doesn't include firing someone because they're african american or because they're hispanic or because they're older or something along those lines so you know obviously i think you know if you look at you know cases in general there's been you know that while what you can do by virtue of the language of the terms of employment there are certain public policy constraints that that often will come and play and however a national bank would still be held to the federal standards and would still have that same uniformity and that's one of the policies of the national bank act in the goals of the national bank act is to have uniformity among all of the officers of the name and the reason why officers are so important is because they are the ones that the public policy or the public identifies with and you know as the ninth circuit  employees these are really important issues i agree and every case that i've read national bank national banking is such a comprehensive and federally regulated scheme and i would like to i see my time's almost up but i would like to leave with a quote from the u s supreme court from eastern versus iowa in which the court stated that the state has no power to legislate in reference to national bank understand that i don't you know i i'm inclined to think they're not exempted obviously from title seventy eighty eighty eight d e a but that different states provide different you know protections for people and you