these important statutory rights this court in eisenberg versus advanced relocation services has adopted that formulation and strictures are absolute in fourteen penn plaza which the police relied on to suggest that the case gardner denver was somehow no longer relevant the court approved its central holding in carter denver and it's it's it's a clear it has clear relevance to this case because in the in the  supreme court's title seven arbitration land of cases the fact that an employee could have a claim for breach of contract for breach of a collective bargaining agreement for breach of an employment contract was uniformly deemed insufficient to vindicate his paramount title seven right likely that the plaintiff there pursue the case where it transferred to another state and finally even in martinez which appellate has placed a great deal of emphasis this court says that it presented a close case and martinez as the court will recall involved an employee who was subject to a form selection called specifying united kingdom he had bought a house in the united kingdom he had applied for citizenship there and he didn't file the lawsuit there so that was this court's idea of a close case there is no question based on this record that and this court in a b c literal and made very clear that if a contract doesn't specify that certain law is to apply we have no confidence whatsoever exactly the course it is highly unlikely that a court netherlands would apply the securities exchange act there's just no reason to expect that a court would do that on top of that of course our expert has established that lebanon has no civil rights on the ground that the farm selection caused and a clause employment contract isn't forcible and requires him to get this dispute in lebanon where he was employed by a u b and why all of the events at issue took place in this hodges also respectfully request that the is whether the direct district court correctly held that he failed to meet his heavy burden of showing that the enforcement of the clause he agreed to in his employment contract would be unreasonable or unjust the district court properly rejected his that's the conclusion of law to write that we would review de novo whether the even if the general form one convenience standard is reviewed as a matter of discretion a legal error would constitute an abuse of discretion agreement your honor that even under the abuse of discretion to the extent the district court's decision turned on a question of law it would be reviewed to no ok so the district court i think that mr allison was correct to focus on martinez and the district court correctly identified that as the governing the most relevant precedent here under this court decision  martinez you considered exactly the public policy considerations that mr allison alleged to in the context of civil rights protected by federal statute there really was williams excuse me in martinez we were talking about the united kingdom and as i read the opinion it seems that it was not disputed that the united kingdom specifically prohibited discrimination in employment and indeed that its protection was broader than title seven was at that time in that mr martinez had a right that he now has under title seven but did not have under prevailing use them against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is that not right it's correct your honor that the court found that the law in the u k was in some ways broader it was also in some ways narrower the court noted that it was comparable protection though it was a discriminate they have discrimination laws and he could make the claim that he was being discriminated against on a prohibited basis and if he established that he would win that's that's right your honor but the court this court has been very clear in its president that the question is not in fact whether there is a an equivalent because i sleep quibble in statute in the foreign jurisdiction and you know the court in martina's said the question it was interested in was whether the law on the chosen form would be insufficient to deter the conduct that the u s statutory scheme in question is intended to prevent and in the robie case which dealt with securities fraud and important public policy consideration of the protection of investors this court expressly said that it would defy reason to suggest that a plaintiff may circumvent form selection causes merely by stating claims under laws not recognized by the form selected in the agreement and that form selection causes could be enforceable even if they  the alternative we have to kind of effect i believe it's the plaintiff's burden to show that they are in effect if there is no dispute that under lebanon's contract law and code of civil procedure the court may provide a remedy in the case of a failure to equitably perform a contract or a breach of employment contract including for reasons of sex discrimination that is not in the district court was correct you know did not err in a region that decision on the basis of professor gabs declaration and also noted that another court in the southern district had reached the same conclusion  a man differently than a woman in connection with a disciplinary process would be called knives a ball is a breach of contract he did not offer an opinion that employee professor would be entitled as a matter of contract to be treated according to whatever procedures the university had in a disciplinary proceedings  refer to the handbooks or the as being incorporated by reference into a contract and that would be the contract rule but at least under american law i suppose if the  university had adopted some discriminatory procedure that said that will always give preference to the testimony of a female student claiming  abuse by a male faculty member that that's all you'd be entitled to as a matter of contract law because that's what the contract that's what the terms of employment were you see what i'm saying the discrimination claim would be separate from of and additional to any breach of contract claim so i'm just trying to figure out you know what this reach of contract claim would look like under lebanese law and whether it would  include some kind of implied obligation on the part of an employer to treat the sexes equally yes your honor i believe professor dabbed does address that and paragraph ten of his declaration which starts at page one hundred and forty six in the joint appendix you know he does not opine simply that a court would narrowly enforce the terms of a contract including because the nonperformance was motivated by discrimination on the basis of sex which is what professor is alleging here i mean it is the thing that i have have trouble with and this is of course always a difficulty in applying for civil civil law system which i gather lebanon is where you can make reference to judicial decisions as binding precedence to establish the law of course he could say that he could say that look at the the one thing to say he can bring a claim of sex discrimination and if he establishes the facts he would win because there's a principle of the law of the country that you can't discriminate but to say that you could argue that discrimination is illegal under lebanese law but maybe the court would say no it isn't maybe the court would say even if you establish those facts we don't treat that as a breach of good faith and it's not clear to me that the opinion is clear on the question that you know discrimination on the basis of gender flatly is a violation of this provision and he would have a cause of action such that if you establish that as a matter of fact he would win that lebanese law your honor i think the declaration is clear that sex discrimination is a ground for finding that a contract has not been executed in good faith you know whether he would ultimately went on the merits i think is not the issue under martinez or robie the issue was whether the law of the foreign jurisdiction actually addresses improvise a remedy in theory and also through the general provision of the code of civil procedure you know that permits a case to be decided in equity in general principles even if there's no specific statute governing the issue let me start with the last point and that is that the but st professor diaz made clear that sex discrimination is not a lawful in lebanon and therefore to say that a contract was breached trust that lebanese law would condemn reversed sex discrimination the traditionally thought of it as discrimination against women than it could be against men and now we understand that it includes sexual orientation in this country anyway and that's not an issue here the nd is what if the university simply said we have the benevolent affirmative action policy president koori the president of the university at one point said that he fully embraced the superiority of women this is one of the allegations of the complaint well documented so the fact that they are trying to advance the rights of women l all of these court would say it was bad faith to terminate based on sex discrimination if they also gave seven other compelling pretextual reasons for the termination so that is with all d with all due respect that is c