gripe was remedy your honor it's clear from the record in particular the record on page one twenty eight missioners theory of the case here is that romney who stabbed an agency and from the client company to which mr schorr was assigned to work by remedy conspired together they acted as one they conspired together to terminate her employment with from and then she also said that they were joint employers but they acted together as her co employers during this joint remedy from employment none of these arguments were raised in the district court so far as i can tell the agency argument your honor yes they were in in from the initial motion to compel from focused on issue as well as the agency really focusing on strong employment relationship i didn't see any discussion about each and see as a basis for enforcing the arbitration clause against this pla application and a remedy employment agreement the handbook as well i'll continue to apply to her during her phone time but she also alleges that from supervised her control the terms and conditions of her employment and control her alberts and pay district judge made clear he was citing the arthur andersen series the effect that these are really matters of state law and your brief your opening brief didn't even bother to cite or three anderson and your reply arbiter of realty be addressed with healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration and what the supreme court said in the rest of that the next wind of that footnote in is whatever the meaning of this vague prescription it cannot possibly require the disregards of state law permitting arbitration etc and i what was held was that state law honor i didn't see any of them actually applying for world war maybe i missed going to the did analyze under federal law they did not apply however even if this court chooses to apply state law for it nevertheless should compel arbitration wisconsin courts have adopted the strong federal policy extending the strong strong policy favored arbitration much like the federal courts have and while this consequence have not dealt with this issue of whether no it's wisconsin contract law not wisconsin arbitration law informs the question here so it doesn't matter that wisconsin likes arbitration too what matters is whether the wisconsin contract law principle of equitable stoppel is satisfied here and you haven't identified anything that plaintiff here did to induce your client the grocery store to rely on the arbitration clause that as far as we know it didn't even court that they would not be open to adopting the theory of stoppel what wisconsin has a theory if you stop every state in the union does and you have to prove that the plaintiff here did something took action that induced your client to rely on an arbitration clause and you just have not carry your burden of showing matt here because so far as we understand your client didn't even know about the arbitration cla court that has to face the issue of whether to adopt both named as defendants but if she doesn't think really did anything wrong the whole problem was sexual harassment by a manager at firms that from fused to to respond to adequately seems like a different fire her in order to assess mr as harassment claims we necessarily require are going to have to take a look at this arbitration agreement which includes discrimination and harassment procedures and informs miche or if you experience discrimination or harassment assignment why was that work assignment ended one of those conversations between front and ranee that ended the work assignment or lead to the end of the work assignment didn't sure report harassment to remedy ready made white why does all  that matter to a title seven claiming it might matter to a breach of contract claim but this is a title seven claim she's suing for the conduct of her supervisor and for that terminations she's got to prove that there was an litigate right and that's a prerequisite for holding an employer liable for harassment or if it sometimes is not always but it sometimes is so as a matter of title seven law that may be an issue but it has nothing to do are present beyond just that singular incident which from did investigate and address and the circuits that have dealt with this theory of acquittal stoppel have not focused solely on the arbitration commitment but rather the relationship between the  by virtue of a very many status as a staffing agency miss short's employment with remedy necessarily entailed assignments to its clients in fact that's her sole purpose of being part of the staffing agency all of her employment claims were going to arise during these client sign minutes she knew that when she entered into this arbitration agreement and yet she agreed to arbitrate all claims related to or arising out of her re that was used by the appellant in this case was referring to a letter that i sent to the department of workforce development in support of a new unemployment insurance claim that miss sure had filed at the time of that particular claim  obviously we didn't know as much information as we do now as the court knows before michelle could even file in court she had to file a claim first with the rights division of the state of wisconsin which has a work sharing agreement with equal employment opportunity commission there was an investigation there which resulted in a right to sue letter and resulted in this lawsuit that was filed so in the lawsuit that was filed we do not claim that remedy intelligen there's no dispute in this case that from fear of the only food center to investigation and discipline the supervisor presumably because they determined that it was true and there's also no dispute in this case that following that investigation they told remedy to it and miss shore's employment that cars are to be fired so i'm not sure where they're coming from in terms of the amount of money that's going to be spent by remedy litigating this case the facts are pretty much already there the court is correct that wisconsin law applies arthur andersen versus carter carlyle and page six thirty one says that it talks about traditional principles of state any case that effects of the court should reject that as well wisconsin does have an equitable stoppel theory but there's no reliance here as the district court pointed out i was constant also as a third party beneficiary standard but wisconsin standards much higher and as make findings of fact i think apply the appropriate standard discords conclusion is correct that from simply hasn't carried its burden and the court should of firm the district court there any other questions that i can answer i'm happy to answer them otherwise i'll take my seat thank you