that if she does not check the box on the questionnaire then the question you have is considered a charge once did not check the box and the second page that means based on the procedures and policy the questionnaire must be considered a charge and what's even more compelling one must actually question at the sea submitted these charges against them ploy based on the questionnaire subsequently she's formula dismissed and i've got to say formally dismissed because when she fought the charge with the city she was on medical leave she had attempted to come back from medical leave airlines in situations like these off first that employee the letter will either state that you're going to agree to the terms of this incident and keep your employment or you disagree on your terminated she came back she was coming off of medical leave when our employer gave her a career decision they later she with used to sign  that point she was terminated based on american airlines policy and she knew it because she says she's also a high level employee she knew that that's when she went to the e by saying it's not so she did it and to prove a point we submitted execute one we also submitted subsequent documents that we filed with the to reach down to the plaintiffs i submit to the court that misfeasance on part of the administrators agency should not bar plaintiff day in court prove a claim of wrongful discrimination and terminations based on national origin that nervous breakdown there radically resulted from that seven part of your damages respect to the two causes of action on appeal before this court counsel argues in his brief that they're both statutory claims not wrongful discharge and violation of public policy claim both the well first with respect to the second cause of action for national origin there was no verified e e o c or d f t a charge filed and under the law he no longer has the document because it destroyed it doesn't mean that charge wasn't filed there's no evidence on the record that it a verified charge under under oath was filed with the questionnaire to the e e o c just as counsel submitted that questionnaire to the district court in opposition to the motion to dismiss and in response the district court in its decision granting the first amended complaints dismissal provided explicit information on what plaintiff had to do to allege that she'd completely exhausted in the strait of remedies but the fair employment and housing ac seven requires a verified charge in writing if you look at supplemental excerpt of record one hundred one when the e e o c wrote counsel in march of two thousand and five explain leaf we received your questionnaire in order to file a charge you need either need to have your client signed the questionnaire under oath under penalty of perjury or submit an e m c charge verified under oath and that didn't happen your honor the questionnaire was the only thing ever filed so there has been a failure to exhaust unverified questionnaire to be filed with the e e o c or with the d f e h and result and a statutory are of a completely a complaint filed pursuant to the statute letter after that there was no contact does not demonstrate the requisite diligence that for example cost of auntie's set forth or in a  situation that the plaintiffs in rodriguez or danny demonstrated here you have after counsel's letter in june of zero three to the e e o c asking for a right to sue which the e o did e e o c did not what's the significance of that or are you suggesting that we have to reverse and remand on that point no your honor i think you should support the district court's decision because there are other grounds in the record on which you can affirm that and one of those dated march thirtieth two thousand and five yes i see that yes and in it he says he's resubmitting a copy of his andersen's charges yes do we know and the letter indicates there was there were enclosures do we know what they you what are we to do with that march fifteenth two thousand and five letter from the e e o c referring to the destruction of the two thousand and three records well well with respect to the district court's decision and i want to make sure i'm understanding the question that one of four and want to five of these supplemental excerpt of records discusses the communications wrongly that she'd received a notice of rights as to when she had not and the next contact with the e s a was approximately twenty months later and in the cases cited in our brief with respect to plain says plain of six cause of action is dismissed without prejudice yes your honor do you can you tell us from the docket whether the plaintiff sought to file an amended six thank you thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision