questions at any time during the presentation but that said the instant case asks this court to consider four basic questions the first of these is a binary question under the new maryland flexible leave act doesn't employees notice to take leave given to his or her employer in accordance with the employer's established believe policy constitute protected activity under the statute and should the district course in this district court in this case have certified and original question of state law to the court of appeals of maryland second did the district court correctly interpret and apply the statute by ruling that mr ginsburg provision of advance notice in accordance with his employer's black and white stated policy in writing was not protected activity under the statute and our brief we note that the good pelleas draw false dichotomy here they draw a distinction between quote unquote taking leave and quote unquote giving notice of intention to take leave as if these are somehow two different activities the only protected activity recognized under the plain language of the statute is taking leave in accordance with the stablished employer policy if the employer requires advance notice of the employee's need to use paid time off then taking leave necessarily includes giving the employer the requested advance notice there is no dispute here that the established employer policy written in a black and white document the employers policy manual further was was clearly that the employer requested a minimum of five days advance notice for the employee to use paid time off to care for his parent mr ginsburg complied with his employer's policy he was rewarded that with term for he was rewarded for that with term a nation only four days after he gave the requested notice as further evidence of causality between those two very close in time and then events there was also undisputed evidence in the record that the employer had made specific provision for mr gainsbourg to continue to function in his dual role as chief compliance officer but you're a resident of florida could you have all this saying you want us to certify couldn't you have brought this in state court in the first place well my client is a resident of florida and yes he could have brought it in in state court but we elected to bring it in federal court for two reasons your honor number one we thought that there may be an issue with respect to having the statute interpreted and we thought that would be a faster track to actually get the statute ever reversed a district court for failure certified but the the question i had is since your client is a resident of florida well that he could have brought suit in state court to begin with and because i guess the defendant isn't in state resident it would have been removable i don't think it would have been removal your honor i mean you could have had you could have had what you're asking for but it would have it would have probably taken a lot longer time to do that he would have to know if you're coming here and requesting certification and everything that's what would what we actually expected to run in their certification request would be honored right away i mean it's an original question of state law nobody has ever touched the law there's been no interpretation since and even judg record would have been indicated the judge name irish to request i'm sorry i just said doesn't need interpretation well i think it's a fairly important question your honor yes the important question but doesn't the statute language answer your question actually it does judgment citied determined it to the contrary that that acting in accordance with the is employers established policy was not protected under the statute and that's what that that that's what needs to change i'm sure you know i'm sure that that esteemed opposing counsel mr hammond dinger who's firm does a lot of advisory things for management side clients is going to go out there  advise their clients now that if they want to ensure that any activities that may be protected under f n l are under n f l a if they if they want to avoid that all they have to do is establish an advance notice policy the and the question of the district court declined into certify the issue was presented in the context of we just don't do that we just don't do that and b i think the word the judgment city used was that we just don't certify questions casually but there was never any explanation made on the record about why that would be a casual and your argument seems to be that the maryland legislature took an ill advised view on policy you think when this statute was amended to say has taken leave that the maryland legislature made a bad mistake and should've had the statue duplicate in all particulars the aff take the words of the statute and have and rewrite them to say expressed an intention but the words are there which is comply with employer policy if employer policy is to give advance notice that's protected activity that's our position and it's consistent with with with what this particular employer inquired of this particular employee that false distinction between taking leave and giving advance notice to take leave in accordance with employer policy is permitted to stand essentially the statutes going to be eviscerated and there was there will be no protection because every employer now well simply put out an advanced believe requirement advance notice requirement for taking leave under the statute at which point they'll they'll have the option to pretty much do with whatever they please with employees what's your answer to the that your client even knew about well they had not at the point in time hired someone i think they had interviewed people but mr steadman himself post terminations post after mr ga generated a system why e mail saying that they had not hired anyone yet they were in the in the process of reviewing an event but it seems like an almost insurmountable fact that is trying to nation arose out of circumstances that preexisted his announcement of use in the year and the other words this was a rose out of a review of his work in the chemistry with the president and all that  is that he was fired four days after he gave the city take the leave and he was also scheduled to be at corporate activities weeks after the determination decision w so you know there is evidence there is undisputed evidence in the record that he was you know supposed to be participating in the holiday christmas party and they had made plain arrangements for him to fly up from florida to rockville so there were there were there were things that were already in process to keep him there before he gave notice when he gave notice then the terminations decision came swiftly in and pretty much without notice  yes and was he ever served he was served he declined service there were two copies there were two copies of the complaint that were delivered by a process server but john grady corporate counsel who did who were they handed to they were refused to accept that law you're relying on to say that's effective service and the f c c rules are clear that we don't have to personally serve him so does it make a difference if all the claims a on the other issues that we raised in the in the in the brief is whether or not mr step mr gainsbourg was a was an employee at will or whether he was entitled to his employment because it said it's a  contract that you pointed to studies that will be terminated by his side at any time but it was the employer's position that he was occupying a role of of high importance as an attorney  including monitoring the performance about site counsel and delivering information about their their that got to do with him or you will in other words employ you will is distinct from or you with between the role of of fiduciary which he was as general counsel and his role as the chief compliance officer and looking at the law coming out of the new york new york courts as well prohibited retaliation against an employee who exercises rights under the section that would make every employee who planned to use some vacation time to visit a relative who is not feeling well a member of a protected class all of us who have older parents would fall into that class the law drew criticism for employees from employers because of its potential for generating  amended may nineteenth two thousand and nine before the events in question the language about exercising rights was deleted and as amended the statute prohibits pro retaliation because the employee has taken leave authorized by this section we argued in the district court agreed that the language did not cover the plaintiff because he had not yet taken leave as a matter of public policy i think there is construction i mean if it was a close question maybe no i don't think the gent court of appeals would do that either i mean the court of appeal you know they would they would scratch their they might say we don't even like you sending this thing over here for  to read right now i agree with that your honor i also think that you don't even necessarily have to reach the statute if you do not wish because the factual record wasn't developed until after we filed our motion to dismiss but the factual record eventually develop the fact that the company had decided to terminate mr gainsbourg before he put in this leave requests and he and he knew that the most telling evidence of that is the e mail he sent his friends where he's found the search advertisement for his own job i don't plan to address unless you have questions of the service of process issue  and the employment real issue doesn't connect to anything in this case besides which under any neither maryland nor new york has said that compliance officers are exempt from one minute will doctrine that leaves the defamation came they don't relate right they are not really we say so so unless you have further questions i will turn back the remainder of my time is the only thing i would i would say in addition to whatever he said is that the claim the the plain language of the statute clearly does say that he has to take leave in accordance with employment policy with his employer policy the employers policy in this case was irrefutably that he had to give the advance notice of doing it so you know there has taken leave authorized under this section but if you if you read the the iteration that the latest iteration the statute your honor and i don't have the executed read to you but it clearly does say that he has to take leave in accordance with employer policy and that is that  is the key word those are the key words here if you know if if employer policy is to give advance notice of intention to them to take leave and he complies with employer policy he should be protected that's all i have thank you