the you are in my understanding of the law is shallow then i was working i was a business analyst and project manager and basically look at these things from that point of view which was is the biggest in the country and they are located in connecticut and they have a lot of money and a lot of so called radical transparency and they can you know the other employees and managers criticize anyone in public in corporate public you know through e mail and the cotton the copy everyone and that brings the wars unfortunately other everyone and that's not fair to minorities and women and the my due process rights and my civil rights were violated in by the attorneys from the other side and also the judge and i brought it as not have jurisdiction over this case at the time based on the facts and their belief and they removed it even i mean i think that's not fair and that's kind of fraud upon the court if you don't believe the court has jurisdiction and why you remove it and they should have let it stay in a state court they look at the car no matter what happened in the contract you look at eighteen months and you see how much associates the respectfully submit the decision below should be for based on the well reasoned opinion of judge underhill in his brief mr forrest basically makes four challenges the first one is he protest the stay of discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending that is a decision within the discretion of the district court it was well taken discretion here because was a meritorious decision evidently well taken since this was the eighth instance which mr forrest and had followed a pro se complaint following terminations a short term assignment making essential the identical allegations and frankly i would suggest had used the expense of discovery to defendants to extract five settlements out of those eight cases in any case was clearly not an abuse of discretion secondly he protests the dismissal the contract claim judge pooler as you noted at a one sixty five we have what is a very simple three page contract signed by mr runner and judge underhill probably found that those who are bored by the settlement patients will stick to the federal claims they were bored because you have ninety days to commence a lawsuit under the age or under total seven after you receive a notice of right to sue the notice of right to sue here which appears in the appendix in a six nine was issued by the it was c in december and that gave him until march to file the first contact mr fours and had it with anyone of all those with the connecticut courts and that was done to april so the federal plates are clearly bored the state claims are also barred and that's because in connecticut to told the statue imitations you need not need to obtain a writ from the court you need to then serve the complaint that's what tolls the statute and then you need to file it mr ferrars and didn't do that until may the c h r rose letter came in january they're completely bored so for all those reasons that are the only reason he raises he claims that there was an was terminated we're told he was he had been hired as a contractor and was an employee was higher through a business and they were trying to complete a project that was scheduled to be done in august one of the team members had to leave for immigration reasons and and was hired help them complete their project if you look at the e mails that mr forrest and attaches to the plate you'll see the members of the team just did not believe that he was adding any value they were spending more time trying to get him up to speed and they needed to focus on the in the project so in the end they said in the end we're sorry but you're not really contributing here will give you the two weeks notice you're entitled to in your contract and it ended at the end of june rather than august when the project was completed a contract with mr fars and company which is called america's consulting enterprise inc which was an independent contractor according to the to the parties agreement my client is an information technology firm and  they provided at the time was finding consultants to for third parties and that's all that occurred here we found we found fars and bridgewater needed a consultant for a short term project we signed a contract with m and it should be affirmed my client i think was added somewhat as a as just an additional party here we were not we were not named as a respondent in the administrative proceedings below so while we have essentially adopted all the arguments of bridgewater because the claims are essentially the same we have one additional reason that i don't think the district court's decision was on and that is that mr carson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for purposes of the discrimination claims  he has raised if your honour's have no further questions of me i will ensure you are bridgewater i believe that it is a in the business group contract it is in the best group contract i believe but it's not in the