think it's important to focus on the case what the case is at its core and this case is simply about public employees being treated differently for no apparent reason and if you don't mind your honour's i'd like to use you as an example for a lesser purposes upon the duties a share up without a taking you know the problem with their argument is that they stipulated in any factual stipulations that the plaintiffs in this case were charged with the same authority and entered the time the exact same allegation that plaintiff did not take a written oath of office and therefore they're not sheriffs want forced employees this argument is unpersuasive for several reasons first and this is a very important point there are certain plaintiffs in this litigation who in fact did have a written oh they took a read no long before this litigation ever ensued one before two thousand and five and to this day they're still being denied access to sla eligibility before two thousand and five defendants have known about these employees through this litigation for a least the last six years and for the last six years have taken no action to correct the issue here that these individuals were sworn neither the defendants ministerial preference to have a written no does not convert that into a statutory mandate yes even if you find that a written  is required as a prerequisite for membership and slap the defendants cannot arbitrarily withhold that prerequisite again the other train is that their contacts in this case can be seen in several ways i refer again to whether it's the four of the six your honor individuals these individuals for notes with the reason we're given a written no law that all the plaintiffs were not given the same on this day defendants have never explained why that is because they can't why they did what they did was completely arbitrary capricious second when the plaintiffs were issued zero since two thousand and five absolutely nothing changed about what oath is completely irrelevant when we are stating is that they were already granted the power years before and granted the authority and exercise a better already and that power before two thousand  and actual physical piece of paper was not necessary for them to be granted the authority as evidenced by the stipulations entered into by the defendants they stipulate they did the exact same thing as the gentlemen of the woman standing next to them performing the exact same  responsibilities with the same authority with clearly a piece of paper literally a piece of paper that simply real front something that these plaintiffs had been already doing for decades is arbitrary with willing a piece of paper and we're not is two thousand the difference between the two cases is nothing changed about the job duties before two thousand and five and after two thousand if that same job duties and authority the employer issue in r what they found was whether or not the plane has a nine hundred eighty one had taken on the duties of the deputy sheriff and whether or not they were bound to perform the duties of the sheriff's office as commanded by the sheriff if you apply their rationale in th it specifically provided for and otherwise are in violation of any other laws no one's arguing that the kind of pension benefits are not provided in the pension and that is the theory that seven section seven prohibits the prairie is from aggregating the pay's even recognize this in their own collective bargaining agreement when they stated nothing in the contract and eliminated tract was debt straight responsibilities in addition even if you after this case was initially filed the defendants i mean they didn't know we were asking for equitable relief we had five complaints filed in this case essentially just adding plaintiffs never changing the prayer for relief and ever changing the theory of the case where we asked for specific based upon a false premise and it could happen that one would be in the in the pool and one would not be in the point that that's the sheriff's discretion it's only the sheriff not the mayor commission which only actually certifies people lists where people you know not the any county in this state do not have control of the jobs easily form the sheriff still the sheriff can control whether or not they are covered by slot i stopped by determining whether or not they have the authority just because they didn't have a piece of paper reaffirming the oath that they have been acting under for decades that's what's arbitrary the defendants also argue that the sheriff has sole discretion  our position is that the plaintiffs were deputies we're not saying that this year that the sheriff has to go out and hire twenty deputies for not hire certain people were saying when these plaintiffs were hired and when they entered into the performance of the duties that the sheriff granted them the authority to do they were deputies i'm for the first time today we're hearing that the plaintiffs are jailers they never raised that argument before first as justice o'brien correctly noted there's a carry out you know we may have to come before the courts determines that eligibility this is a guideline it's not controlling and it's not dispositive also  at the same time so even if this newfangled very minute that the claim is being jailers is adopted by the court that doesn't mean that they're not as so deputy sheriffs at the same time thank you the other point i wanted to make is that the defense counsel is that the plaintiffs perform essentially the same job duties that's not the because they perform the exact same job duties and one thing that i think needs to be highlighted is that sheriff's deputies working in we had told you tension facility literally working side by side in gazing at the same competitive bidding process her positions same authority supervisors were interchangeable everything was the same and there was no difference other than i and this written all that was arbitrarily and capriciously not given to something this and to others we ask that all plaintiffs be treated actively in this case and not just the four