evidence and the lack thereof from before during and after well we can often mentally period the judgment can have this too should have been arbitrary because the collective bargaining agreement includes  all multiple doctors would have tested and done all their reports filed earlier and god knows who is primary care doctor earlier who would put all those results of the summary earlier and then another doctor would have been everything and that of course he says w report multiple tests fast but plaintiff even admitted at trial that of one point he could not even get his primary care doctor to return phone calls and how people stated on the record that the primary care doctor wasn't being internet website which he had it on and were the information was provided to him in a section final in all capital letters duration louis says he only has twelve weeks there's which demonstrate that the provision that is in the collective bargaining agreement is is a generalized provision which has received negative reviews in virtually every  case that i that in this district certainly judge pac olds decision you know in which a virtually identical phrases use should be provided in accordance with the law well of course it couldn't be any different and it's ironic that council insists that this case couldn't have been arbitrated because they refused to arbitrate think the record is clear that they the union filed the petition and hand to arbitrate and they refused to do so so what's good for the goose is cooked for the gander if they are insisting it cuts both ways that somehow the unions insistence that this provision could be could be armed trained is somehow decisive the issue plays on the side of the claim that this case was appropriately presented to a federal court that the arbitration provision in order for there to be find that this case was properly presented to a federal court with your guard to be after my labored counsel attacks the verdict the jury verdict on numerous grounds before september nd i believe that he came back a day later in any event but a the jury found and the judge  defended it and their motion to to overrule the jury's verdict that that's it permissible it was permissible for the jury to fine that go jet violated my client's ri not giving him any of the documents that are required under the estimate why they didn't they didn't send him various notices that we list and the jury can could conclude reasonably that failing to do so violated his family rights and interfered with his ability to actually administer this this claim properly they gave him only five days to certify instead of the required time they and there's also in terms of the intent of go jets to comply with the law there's an there's an e mail in which the the chief of the division writes to another person and says let me know as soon as clytie a comes back we're going to fire regardless and i believe that it's appropriate for the jury to take that into consideration anyway the bottom line is that all of these things are jury questions which the juries is supposed to take in conflict pieces of evidence and make a decision is what they find is a reasonable likely interpretation of the events they concluded that go jet violated my client's rights by not giving him the appropriate documents by rushing his certification and the fact is that when they say that well he didn't notify them as soon as possible they're insisting on some kind of you know hyper technical enforcement of a regulation that was only listed on a website they had no as i think the evidence was to go to his no human resources front and there was nobody for him to report to and he was unaware of what the that there was something about f m l a in this in this  the bottom line on it all is that that these are jury questions which and which the jury was entitle to to interpret go jets actions as interfering with my client's after molay rights and finding that  he in fact was deprived of rights that he had under the law and the jury so found the judge upheld it and  i would i would ask that the court house affirm the judge's decision here denying their motion of to overrule the jury's verdict and that the court find that this case was arbitrated so it was properly here the jury made proper findings and were asking the court to affirm the decision of the trial for plausible that plaintiff would have kept doing what he had been doing for years prior to when he left and that is ernie only along he was ability is all that is required the job and there's no damages only ok so the issue there is weak we contend that the judge erred because he had before him information which suggested and for instance the judge the trial judge said well he was busy and he had and he had side practices right what the facts were the actual fact was he was working ninety five hours a week and i'm sorry  ninety five hours and and therefore it would be someone anomalous at least to say well he's too busy to fly the number of hours that that that he suggests when he's actually doing it so we  suggest that there is there's there's somewhat of a a logical gap there and therefore the calculation of damages should have been according to the ninety five  hours instead of the seventy five hours and the we make the point that if you you take the way his his act is you're forcing him to kind of work for free if he has the if he has to make up its sky jet by flying twenty extra hours what he would he would make if you only flew seventy five for go jet it's seems as some form of  involuntary servitude almost if you're forcing them to say in order to make the same wages to fly an extra twenty hours so we believe that there has been no error there  and that the i mean there was an error in the way that the judge the weight of the front page damages that should be adjusted to reflect reality which was that he was flying ninety five hours so seventy five hours which was used to to to fly as the basis for the war and the case will be taken under advi