court's permission i would request an opportunity for three rebuttal a fine thank you there are four issues that i'd like to address today that when resolved will require a reversal of the top court verdict in the judgment new york the court of appeals in new york that was rendered are handed down and twenty has jurisdiction stripping of facts on the v the the verdict in this case based upon the fact that the new york law of the impact on the new york city ordinance but it reads no question but that the federal district court here had subject matter jurisdiction over this action that action was that subject matter jurisdiction was based statute under which the plaintiff has brought this particular claim is suspension paddies available to him against the defendant and would have been helpful state law which is required to be followed by a court sitting and diversity that effectively requires a court to decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction so as a declamation as a as a refusal to exercise the last part came from the tenth circuit therefore there cannot be a waiver the court actually addressed in that case the issue of affirmative offenses which can be waived discussed just previous hold in the stewart case that discuss the subject matter issue straight in your city has no interest in stopping the following process a person his employer the new york office is misled into moving to massachusetts is fired in consequence of being tricked into analysis there's no dispute that he was physically living in massachusetts at the time he was notified of his term a nation we filed an initially in middlesex appear court under massachusetts law on the eve of trial the most interest in the case given that you've worked there for twenty seven years i thought that the defendant had not years yup location of the new york state discrimination law not the new york city well they are you about the new york state to apply the law of the jurisdiction not a particular law in other words your argument wasn't would like new york state law to apply but if you are state god doesn't apply in new york city that law applies and will take the massachusetts l certain particular requirements before the lottery can be applied one of which is is that a party take completely inconsistent positions and and i don't see that is much more on point in that case the plaintiff had worked for a new york city company for six weeks and then worked remotely for five weeks during those five weeks the plaintiff was working remotely for the new york city office and they held that there was an adequate showing in fact under the new york city human rights on here you have an employee was working for a new york city office for twenty seven years moved to boston as working remotely for the new york city office for one month and worked in the new york office for so long well that in this case the conduct actually occurred in new york city too which makes the argument that much stronger the evidence showed that the plan to terminate m massachusetts the rug has been pulled out after the planning has gone behind the scenes in new york while he was already there i mean the essential you know argument here is is that you know he was given approval by his directs supervisor to transfer as well as the supervisor above him he was never told that there was any other approvals or process necessary he told his supervisor when he was planning to move to boston a supervisor responded ok let's discuss told you have to be in the new york city office tomorrow and every day five days a week notwithstanding the fact that you've worked the majority of your time remotely throughout your employment was it but i thought your position was generous to himself  you know involved phone calls e mails work on this computer system that was being phased out the s four hundred system so you know and again he had been working remotely three or four days a week so nothing really changed except the locus of where he was supervisor again and what before mr inskeep ever left new york city so there'd be an opportunity coming up he was eventually hired there's an e mail that's in the addendum to our brief that shows the plan that was put in place hire the younger contractor damages i believe the record reflect about specifically for the fuck up the planning and scheming for terminating mr risky occur while you're still in the building they had every opportunity to say damages in this case based on the fact that there was you know clear evidence that there was machinations going on behind the scenes that could have been avoided you know as he was saying his good byes on his last day somebody  residence in massachusetts and that he was going to be replaced or not no that is that nothing would change other than he would perform as well from massachusetts as opposed to performing of the majors are his information was transferred to this other person when he was unaware that was a internal e mail behind the scenes with management that he was not aware of that was hatched before mr wrist and skier left new york city and it was about striking him along and getting him to take a step to telecommute from from from boston and use that as a basis to terminate him the reason why they want to do that is  this i agree but i think that the way they went about it was that they said there's more of a connection and more of an impact in new york to see you're conflating the terms if it's more of an impact maybe it would be a case of the hoffman case was structured in a way to prevent and foreclose what's happening here and that is a minimum contacts analysis the new york the court of appeals in new york made it very clear we want to simple test the simple test is where is the discriminatory discrimination victim where is he living where she was adina if you reside in outside the the five boroughs or new york city then where was he working he was working and residing and living and relevant that the fairness here is a harsh result but it's a fair result because there has to be certainty for the application of new york law what the police suggestion is ambiguity and how that loss going to be applied  city the view in your view that when it's time to replace the older person with a younger person suggesting he move to a study your time to continue doing his work is a perfectly fine strategy i don't think that's  city of new york i think that's the court of appeals in new york was suggesting what the city meant when it passed the ordinance so it would only make sense to do that if the city council actually was of the view that when it's time to replace the old guy with the young guy the thing to do with a tell all guy to