the final case on for argument is daley versus city  just so i'm sure we got the spelling right you and your client are separated by and i know is the same spelling it is the same still i so we have it wrong in the calendar on the calendar here d n a i own y is not her it's da l y right thank conceded was the operative pleading they failed to accept as true the facts alleging causation between whistleblowing and retaliation which was also properly pled in the amended complaint and three for failing to enforce the sarbanes oxley act as amended by dodd frank specifically overrode the federal arbitration act in submitting this claim to arbitration i ask you a kind of a background of course only mean that is what happened the notion the judge said no this is  except for one piece of it which was not dismissed that on other grounds ok whatever happened to the arbitrations going to go forward did it go forward it state it state so that if even if we were to affirm here they would still go forward with an arbitration as to parts or coley on the claims that were separated out it wouldn't be the end of the matter it would go forward on arbitration it's not the continuing violation doctorin is one part of it but that is not the majority of what we are relying on blacklisting was properly pled and the was actually occurring at the time of filing view five was published and it is not just a statement but it was a tool used by finra used by citi group unfit sit platform that would require every single potential employer to have to go through citi group in order to hire erin otherwise they face if they face spoke with a potential employer they would have to discuss with citi group the defamatory and false statements on her you five and they would have to verify them so citi group was using platform on finra to ensure that every single potential employer would have to go back and confirm the defamatory statements on the u five if it was just a statement this would be a different thing however by statements they were they were just responding to calls for yes and they would have to confirm every single time there was a potential they force themselves to continue doing to interfere with aaron's potential employer correct and that's pursuant to very specific federal rules sixty seven states potential employers must certify that the member has communicated with all previous employers for the past three years and has taken appropriate steps to verify the items so failure to verify the items with citigroup would subject that potential employer to disciplinary charges and possible expulsion that or had any discussions about possible employment those future employers would have to discuss the u five with fender or they would be subject to disciplinary charges themselves and expulsion blacklisting as a cause of action for outlines the procedures for handling retaliation complaints under sarbanes oxley and it specifically lists blacklisting as a form of retaliation protected by sarbanes oxley as amended by dodd frank which renders the statute of limitations issue completely void citi group and the district court used the wrong date of retaliation determine the date the statute of limitations began to toll throughout their brief they stated that the terminations fell outside of the statute of limitations which is which is correct and the date that the complaint was submitted to the department of labor and they did fall well outside of the statue of limitations if you use the wrong date of retaliation the date of retaliation as properly alleged in the complaint was the final act of black listing or tortious interference with employment relations the second way the lower court failing to find any connection whatsoever between aaron's whistleblowing and retaliation assuming series of ac consistently seeking employment in the financial industry the the second issue that the court found that there was no connection whatsoever between the complaints alleged the more than sufficiently pled that every single time  city retaliated against every time she informed her superiors about violations and outright fraud and even though city groups didn't even deny any of the facts as alleged in the complaint the court found that there was no connection between city groups erin's whistleblowing which inspired it when she worked at the equity desk of the private the private bank which handled stock allocations when she set up a system for fair allocations she was stripped of her allocation privileges when she there was the court found absolutely no connection between the retaliation the whistle blowing the second when she e mailed her superiors that her allocution rights be restored to her and that she continue to have fair allocation procedures she was forced to publicly apologize to human resources to her coworkers and her bosses for requesting equal treatment and equal allocation privileges the third and most dangerous is that when erin was pressured after she lost to lost her stock allocation privileges she became sort of made herself an expert on real one forty four stock which is insider information so she became the go to person to have any time that anybody wanted to do anything with inside information her bosses knowing that she's always possessed this very valuable information we're constantly pressuring her either daily or by the hour to give up this information so that they could trade on it and the pressure became so great that she went to human resources again who were for her to their lawyers who fired her two weeks later and the court found no connection whatsoever with retaliation fired her own human resources did she spoke to the lawyers and the same human resources that referred her the lawyers fired her ultimately the lower court found no connection whatsoever with that retaliation whistleblowing the third issue is that the court failed to enforce the congressional mandate which specifically overrode the february federal arbitration act this is eighteen u s c fifteen fourteen a i know there was another section that's not relevant here no pre dispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if the agreement requires arbitration of a dispute arising under the section aaron very clearly brought a complaint that citi group was rigged guilty of retaliation for whistle blowing under sarbanes oxley all of cities arguments that are in favor of arbitration in the case law that supported the reason why dodd frank amended sarbanes oxley and made it so abundantly clear that this act was intended to override the federal arbitration act it states in another place a party to an action brought into this paragraph shall be entitled to a right to jury and the rights and remedies provided for in the section may not be waived by an end you group including by a pre dispute arbitration agreement congress recognized that finra was not the proper forum to hear this dispute and that banks and especially citi group should be held accountable in us courts and not courts run by peep the defendants so our brains actually was inactive in the wake of the financial just stop corruption and specifically a citi group fin was only rules demand that member banks follow fin rules in violation of congressional rules which rule i am twelve thousand states that  it may be deemed conduct inconsistent with just enough equitable principles of trade and a violation of rule twenty ten for a member to require associated persons to waive the arbitration of disputes which is in direct contravention of sarbanes oxley she ignores the federal arbitration act which is not overridden by the sarbanes oxley act as amended by don for frank she ignored decades of jurisprudence mandating that arbitration agreements must be enforced according to their terms and she that statute of limitations must be adhered to and that claims must be timely filed or they cannot be pursued in the face of these uncontroverted legal principles appellant presents conclusory assertions that are not supported by the record or the law the first that's correct the claims of discrimination in retaliation that appellate asserts are on mystique of employment disputes that are within the scope of the broad arbitration clause and she she cannot borrow the statutory language that congress chose to add to sarbanes oxley to avoid arbitration of all other statutory claims and those claims have been consistently and uniformly deemed arbitra with respect to the point that with respect to the causal connection causal connection between her whistle blowing activity the court did not make any findings at all about the merits of her socks it is ok so there is no merits finding by judge sullivan about her but about a causal connection or otherwise there was a finding that she can use the sarbanes oxley the sox claim as a t prevent all other claims from being arbitrated because they are intertwined that was the only finding that he made with respect to the sox claim an arbitration with respect to the sox claim itself a claim and has one hundred eighty days to file with alleged in her complaint the last bad act that she's alleged to have committed was filing the u five that's the last time they meet in allegedly retaliatory comments statement and she had an ability to challenge that if she so chose within one hundred eighty days and she failed to do that which she's arguing now is the damages argument she's saying that her client is still impacted still harmed by that you five and it just  database you five has been there since december twenty third two thousand and fourteen citi group didn't engage in any further comstock and there's no allegation that prospective employer so and so on did anything or that in any event had they had they said the same thing that was on the you five which claimant which is now in delhi knew about from december twenty third two thousand and fourteen and she can't keep saying well i knew about that from december twenty thir two thousand and fourteen so the fact that it's still out there the fact even if even though there's no allegation to the fact that it was repeated later that wouldn't restart the statue of limitations claw the case is that mr daley relies upon stand for a general proposition that properly pled and timely filed a plaintive can assert a claim of blacklisting that there could be post terminations actions by a former employer that can be actionable but it doesn't do away with the that it's a continuing violation and again that that is not that is not accurate this court is reluctant to extend continuing violation doctrine and as the lower court noted in and cited this particular argument was already rejected by the second circuit in lightfoot versus union carbide when it held quote a continuing violation is not a stablish merely because an employee continues to feel the effects of a discriminatory act on the part of the employer that's exactly what she's alleging here there was a separate post terminations misconduct where there was an allegation which is not in the amended complaint but they were understood but if there was a you five and then some prospective employer called up and sa what happened with mr alley and there was an allegation that citi group did and said something and there was an allegation that that what was said or done was retaliatory and then it was properly filed with osha and properly exhausted within a proper time period then that arguably  that scenario could be could be actionable it just doesn't isn't what happened here so because the alleged last misconduct occurred in december two thousand and fourteen the statue of limitation simply doesn't start in new every day there after an opponent was not permitted to wait almost two years to raise her claim  but it is a lot maybe not but we have a split in the district with there is a so there is at least one authority that goes the other way but when you know as the lower court noted the supreme court held in gross congress amends one statutory provision but another it is presumed to have acted in intentionally for when we can't get into the heads of what why that decision was made but dodd frank was is a different statutory scheme properly dismissed i would like to just address the response that if there was any new action it would give rise to a cause of action again the language of the you five is completely false the concerns that included tardiness and insubordination with regard to working errors or in work from seven o'clock in the morning often to two and three o'clock in the morning the following day concerns about a separate incident incident which the representative forwarded confidential information about a planned offering to a coworker this the entire language is false which requires a new causation of libel every single time a prospective employer would have had to call citi group or face disciplinary charges by finra and possible expulsion which is a pretty serious charge for anybody in finance the i'm not sure i completely understand your question erin realize when she got the a five she didn't realize its import and she didn't realize that other employers would have to contact citi group and even if she didn't realize it if there was with time yes and well after and as far as the exhaustion the of the the administrative remedies because we are alleging that the blacklisting and torturous interference with employment relations was going on up to the time the amount of complaint was filed and well after the sarbanes oxley the department of labor received their complaint timely as did the e e o c and erin received her right to sue letter from the c therefore she is satisfied all the requirements of sarbanes oxley i would like to just address the fact that we are only i'm only appealing the issue as far as sarbanes oxley having to do eighteen us c fifteen fourteen a which is for whistleblowers retaliation and that specifically requires that these issues be arbitrated the matter that's up for dispute is seventy six c it's a different statute and that's i just wanted to clarify that the second thing is we're not arguing impact we're arguing specifically that citi group specifically interfered on an ongoing basis by having actual telephone conversations with prospective employers as required by f thank you very much thank you very much joe just thank you both in this case as in the preceding cases we will reserve decision as i indicated earlier there is mortgage electronic registration united states