of the refusal of his employer who provide financing or refer his for minority customers for auditing of their used car of their new car that they no covered person or service provider may terminate or discriminate against an employee for reporting a violation of the act they do about the auto dealers exclusion so what do you do about the auto dealer exclusion yes the car dealer exclusion provides that the bur that is the consumer protection act bureau who is in charge has been given the jurisdiction over consumer protection matters of the bureau may not exercise any rule making supervisory enforcement or other authority including any authority to order assessments and so forth does not say anything about jurisdiction this is where i think the district court made an error or i think the car dealers position is in error because the provision of the consumer for protection act says that if the employee reasonably believes that he is reporting of violation that is subject to the jurisdiction of the  that has both of the phrases in in the one and one sentence and here i found it i think that this is twelve u s c fifty five sixty seven a which is the non retaliation provision again but if you go down to the section for it says that where the employee has objected to refused just paid in an activity or task that he rea here we are saying that he had a reasonable belief that it was illegal and contrary to the law the consumer protection finance protection act to discriminate against minorities in providing financing and that based on that reasonable belief which was within the jurisdiction of the board he could not be retaliated against by his employer whether no matter who it was whether it was a cardigan or not you agree that in your own language says may not exercising your room miking supervisory enforcement or any other authority over a motor vehicle dealer you agree that there is no jurisdiction under this consumer finance protection act the fact that your client might have had a reasonable belief wouldn't there is no jurisdiction under the act the fact that he had a reasonable leap belief there was does not give jurisdiction over this claim yes yes i disagree with that and it's two reasons one reason is the fact that they were a service provider which is a separate category of person whether it's an auto dealer or not this is the statute is particular that it says no covered person or service provider and there affidavit from frank peca says in particular that he was providing the service of collecting all of the financial data from the customers and transmitting it to the lender the lender did nothing but either fund the loan or say it didn't want to he did everything that was the service he provided as an employee of the dealership so under the particular language of the act no cover person are sort of our service provider feel terminate or in any way discriminate brings us back in even though there is no fourth one or regulatory authority there is drew's dikshit and if they're furious bureau supplement one part one o two it's very short and it says a credit or referral to creditors which is essentially what mr calderon was gathering all of the data for referral to the creditor the lender for certain purposes the term creditor and kluge persons such as real estate brokers automobile dealers home builders home improvement contractor who do not participate in credit decisions but who only accept applications and refer applicants to creditors or select or offer to select creditors to whom credit requests can be made these persons must comply with section one zero two point four a the general rule prohibiting discrimination and with section one old two point four b the general rule against discouraging applications which are the very thing that were alleging here we that were claiming this is as an official interpretation it was effective january eighteenth two equal credit opportunity that is the interpretation that you found in just read it's an it's a department of labor interpretation of the equal credit opportunity act yes yes yes but that's what it begs the question as to whether or retaliated against was still protected because after all this is a statute that is supposed to be self executing and in other words the department of labor's charged with protecting consumers under this act regulatory or enforcement or other jurisdiction of the regulatory part is is is particularly important to the part of the risk of so there you know the fourth of third largest lend police attorney stated here that the cause of action brought here was not brought under the employee i'm sorry the equal credit opportunity act it was in fact bought under the retaliation provisions of the consumer flight financial protection act  looking at the political statute the consumer financial protection that it says that no cover person or supervise or i'm sorry or service provider shall terminate or discriminate against a covered employee who has provided provided information to the m and it goes on and says that the employee reasonably believes to be in violation of any provision of the law that is subject to the jurisdiction of the bureau or any  rule order standard or probation prescribed by the burglars so you have to look and see what does the bureau cover and as your on a judge him some pointed out you have to look at section fifty five nineteen for that and section fifty five nineteen states that the bureau made not exercised rulemaking supervisory him for spent or any other of the already over a motor vehicle dealer predominately engaged in the sale or sever saying of motor vehicles and judgment evidence that was not contrary to to show that we are in fact a motor vehicle dealership covered by this statute and therefore we are exempt from coverage under the consumer financial protection b respect to that matter so that says hanging out there i'm sure that that will be another issue that we will be addressing in the future if and when they do file that larry octavia has a looser or more comprehensive definition of creditor correct correct credit opportunity sorry the equal credit opportunity act there is no private cause of action for an employee in that situation he could not sue under that statute he had to have bought his claim under the c of p which as you pointed out before incorporate the fifty five one thousand exemption yes yes so is your argument that the laws are enforced by the bureau but not to the extent that in the exemption in fifty five footnote twelve we're saying we don't know why that's relevant or why that's even a nation because again that language is still exempted it says except as otherwise provided so whether or not you are a covered employer or a service provider is still the same exemption i don't know why that noted that automobile dealerships are going to be exempt from coverage under the statute they specifically say that the legislative history that we have cited in our brains so i'm surprised to hear that assertion today respectfully i don't believe that it's right i can't imagine have to do so because as a matter of law he could not have a reasonable reasonable belief that he was discriminated against because he's only thirty nine this decade only applies to people who are forty however and he came up and said wait a minute your honor i've got my birth certificate here and contrary to what the that that says where you don't have a cause of action as a matter wall you cannot have a reasonable belief that you have been discriminated against under that statute it just doesn't make sense and i think that's what all all the political years that some holds and the way that this case should be decided and so we submit again based on the language of the statute again reading from the consumer find financial protection at the exemption contained in section fifty five nineteen that it's clear that the automobile dealerships and like my client sonic houston are excluded from coverage under the statute and further the plane of could not have had a reasonable reasonable belief that he was complaining of a violation under that statute because reasonable mistake may be one of law or five so you can have a mistake a lot of the voting no reason to sell you a reasonable belief at all if in fact if you're wrong that it doesn't cover you  if you make your report it's protection for the person that makes a report if he if he has a reasonable belief whether it's wrong as a matter of law or wrong as a matter of fact should not make a difference the second thing is a question about what's the difference we have in one thousand one hundred nineteen and one claims the judges said that they can go or should be referred to arbitration the other case was a state law case which we allowed under the statute that were relying on here we're entitled to a jury trial there's that is arbitration is prohibited there's no question about not having an opportunity to go entirely different burden of proof that it's much easier on the plaintiff so we're going to hold on to this statute this is why we're here even though we could go to nineteen eighty one or some other statute this is important