conflict and the sub issues under those remedies and the time limits and i'm going and going to turn to the alternative choice of got quite a bit that happened and i go home with it and there's no question about that but it happened under the auspices of a washington employer and washington has taken a very strong laws a company corporation can change its place of incorporation in a matter of days it fires in delaware and then it can deregister in delaware so where it's incorporated really isn't the issue it's where it does business it can't dismantle its headquarters it terminated sample easer transfer them this is a washington are like i don't have any case law on that but my understanding is that it remains certainly the law of the district and i believe it was the first if not district but the vision and is persuasive in the other divisions but if i may i'd like to get to the false conflict issue which was addressed by the supreme court because any of these i believe are if you find that there is a basis for these arguments or would result in reversal and i believe there is a false conflict if you look at the facts in burnside and you look at the facts here what you see is that there was an out of state decision that was made and that the court decided that nevertheless washington law was going to apply because of the fact that the burnside the california statute the fair employment and housing  resolution it said you know even though there is this difference it's not so incompatible to every result and a different intentions as to eradicating discrimination i don't hope has certainly a similar not identical statement of purpose but it is  it is the first time that the idaho supreme court addressed the issue at least and affirmative way on public policy terminations and one of the cases that  is mind should the be the rubber company a new hampshire case from a few years earlier which was in effect a sexual harassment case the individual  first of all it's victor secondly there was no claim under the idaho human rights act there's just the title seven claims and it doesn't talk about the  actually i don't know that it wasn't a she it was is that he didn't bring the public policy claim for a violation of the human rights act there were other wrongdoing and there's a recent case that i just found actually the smart and when i was shepherd i sing the the latest cases and actually looking at the idaho human rights act to see if there you know i just hope it refers to title seven that actually the civil rights act of nineteen sixty four and its preamble title seven as you all know requires the y h y n h corporation case involving the minimum number of employees under title seven so these are not jurisdictional bars and what our washington supreme court said was that again the fundamental purposes of the law are not in conflict and once the fundamental purposes of the law are not in conflict then  hich again is a court of appeals decision but it was a no way and weekend at the supreme court that in a discrimination case it's going to make sure that it incorporated in washington state and has employees in the fifty states of the union put in the american virgin islands and say nothing about places like or a programmer sitting at a computer module somewhere in the world what we have here is someone who has regular contacts with the home office and i don't know how the answer to that question but no not every case involves every employee but however the employer is responsible i'm just about out of time and the only thing i will say on the constitutional issue is that judge quackenbush really answered those questions in his earlier order denying the original motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds as well as the constitutional corporation has four or five thousand employees maybe a hundred would be in washington so that's where the chief executive is and the employee relations people are kind of those type of staff people  thank you your honor and i will be brief the critical issue in burnside was the fact that  permission to work here or was it washington cooperation is irrelevant it is a washington corporation and therefore it is subject to washington laws as far as the court of concepts to burnside one with was not overruled by a right choice of law is cause of action specific can we talk about that and my three things going on because your time is up