the question is what do we do in this case where the plaintiffs did everything the state told them to do but now they're finding out that they're being barred from the scene and that's what happened with mr lott you filed a claim in the circuit court under  state there were cases there it's a lot versus governor state university one o six eleven thirty eight fifty one i have the other sites if you want to case that commission did in the manner in which you suggest that's correct and that was remedy that the court life came up with her own analysis but as i said i don't think you need to get to that issue i think that if you think that then the question is how do we interpret course we meet court on constitutionally created court or do we mean in adjudicating body that is going to make the state change money the inclusion of the court explains the civically in the immunity suggests that we're talking more than just courts the court of claims uses court in his name but it's a creature of the legislature it is equivalent to the commission it's a fact finding body that's going to make determinations and work money for the pointis legislature amended the act they didn't change the image and all they said is that if you read the act as a whole the state was an employer by definition if they violate the act and discriminate against individuals  those individuals at some point in the process have the option of suing the state either in the circuit court or in the commission that's that that is the way you read the act today other governmental entities and state agencies and the court recognize dance and the act was it was such they have the state was supposed to sue for violations that the problem in madigan though was the phrase may have a specific four and going back to lot the reason i cite a lot is a lot of reasons but it also involves this claim of whether this claim under this act of that is declared unconstitutional and so they decided if you're procured remedy wasn't to send it to the court of planes but to send it to the commission is vast with the act says and so here we have in the state being allowed to be sued  federal court opinion talk about state neither of them act as a whole as amended they focus just on the amendment and they're looking for you know something in the amended amendment that says the states waivers are unity and that's not  considered the legislature knew that the state had been sued for thirty years that they knew that they had been subjected to thousands and thousands of dollars in awards to pick from should they knew they had been enjoin hire and promote in reinstate people that they knew all that was going on and they didn't say ok well we don't want the state to be subject to those things in court which is i guess our position that they should have done since the they the least with respect to the commission and the waiver of sovereign immunity and the immunity act using the phrase court but as i said i just think that if you look at the immunity act itself of the question of why did they include the  violations of title seven years from a nation such situation yet that same plaintiff on the same facts would not be able to sue them employer or the state as their employer in state court and again going back to the idea first district in lowell way also recently applied just three years ago the in recession education walker test in this case the city of harvey wanted to bring a claim under the environmental protection act against the state and w did not address this city issue about the definition of lawyer and they criticize it as being superficial but the fact is that the party said raise that argument that argument has never been raised in the federal district court decisions which  commission's take authority what about casey's lot there's no there's you know i didn't look at that he didn't supply me with those cases that he was going to rely on them but i am aware of logan versus them and brush and that was u s supreme court cute these claims for thirty years they can award all the same remedies at a circuit court and they've developed special expertise so in many cases a complaint with you better in front of the commission because subtle form discrimination the commission recognize it perhaps better than  big fan of comments made by straight legislators but the limited mostly me i can't speak for right though the limited to just a couple of pages of debates on this and i mean ok and what they said was a lot of other states do it and at the act as a whole which is what walker says you should do and you look at it at the time but you have a right now not piecemeal from when it was amended and when it was in act conclusion has to be that the state knew it was subjecting itself to liability for employment discrimination cases and knew that it was giving victims from nation the option of going to commission or s court you know and you know think doesn't want to deal with the fact that this is not like the statute in walker where it says other governmental entities it doesn't say t all the clear reference to the state in the definition of employers which is you know one of the important definitions in the employment section of the act i think makes it clear that the legislature knew that it was subject of itself to in essence th defendant and then order the department or process the claim and you know the one of the reasons why this is appropriate in this case is this was a mistake by the attorneys it's my state says this was not a mistake by the attorney the notices that we cite them in the record that the state sent to both mr lynch and mr storm explicitly in bold off you have to say you have ninety days to file your complaint in  the circuit court or the commission so the state told him now in in walk ins and maybe down below in this case you know there was sung since that maybe that was being suggested as a way for the sleazy meaning sovereign immunity state employees of this that's not our argument is that that's what the state told us and if the state was wrong about that then logan suggests that you can't deprive our clients of their due process rights to their claims because of the for the two thousand and eight minutes of the right to trial by jury was one of them that was made available that was part of the moment that is not available in the commission the speed of the  to to affirm or reverse that decision so i think there were lots of reasons to do it the fact that discovery was different certainly was also one but it was written as an  the other ones don't involve the court of claims in the state but they all come out the same way i'm none of them were tempted by the only supreme court review i think one of them they're not arguing to us that somehow that suggests approval by the supreme know i'm just i'm just saying that there's a number of cases where this was one of the remedy for that this is the only one that i'm aware of that that deal with the state so again i think that the what you should do is simply reverse