clearly the parties were confused and that there's even inconsistent conduct by the defendants that show that the contract is having us although i think it's important looking at the circuit city cases and that washington  and the reason they do that is because you almost have to because this agreement is pretty clear that that would just deal with the underlying wage client and not discriminate discrimination claims if you look at that the way it was in the circuit city cases you got  i don't know that there is a case more directly on point saying that it doesn't have to be more practice i think though in practice there are so many cases where you don't have any underlying contract that we have before us there's a merger clause which indicates that that contract is all there really is there isn't anything else aside from the contract so i'm not sure where that it was repeatedly acknowledged as i read the record that this is a contract contractual basis for this claim there is a contractual basis for the claim but the contract is not based on this contract to the side it's based on just  i'm saying is you would need the written contract in order to have a contractual relationship that would lead to a nine hundred eighty one claim it could if there could be no contract at all and you would still have a claim under nine hundred eighty one and there's not a requirement that there be a written contract in order to have an eighty one claim that's what i'm saying but if you look at the caution ability issues here that six months is that way not just different issue yeah i understand the stand your argument there are both the six months you still have you seen and if you show that there's it's reasonable restrictions and he agreed to them that he voluntarily agreed to them and they're reasonable i understand that i just didn't understand your part of your  me that you're indicating in your brief that there is something different from the written contract and that you can have something floating out there that's not anchored to a contract and i had problems with that issue you may be right but i don't find the cases  quote therefore we hold one hundred eighty degree limitation provision in the agreement and reasonably favors fred in the manner and that's something when conscionable and that  don't hold up because that was a contract that either party had a certain time period in order to bring their claims and there's also one on top of unkosher building the court says that parties cannot grimly high that the court should not allow a limitation of a situation where you have an employer employee relationship and you've got in equity of bargaining but looking through the supreme court for knack court burnett found the six month limitation quote manifestly inconsistent with the central objective of the reconstruction era civil rights statute which is to ensure that individuals who statutory rights are british may recover damages where you here we've got a six month with no administrative process doesn't it change a little different gets you all the way home on that especially in cases like this one case although it was a state case that was a six month case it didn't find anything wrong with that ok and i can address first i don't think i think burnett was saying that we need to distinguish like anyone from an administrative claim where you can merely think courses where you could merely show up and have an agency assist you in the process that part of the will not be upheld that undercuts a statutory objective and that's a lot of what you've got there graham well case where the ninth circuit said look we're not going to allow one hundred eighty days the actual imitation is that undercuts the statutory objective a reasonable period of time to seek relief for improper terminations another group used by the by the growing pressures here we have broad sweeping civil rights statutes we should not that are there because we don't trust that business allow the freedom of contract to to basically shorten the window of opportunity to file these important significant statutory coins in your in your argument in your brief any i think clearly one year would be i think three years was at least the shortest of any state when they had before that before to our economy for years which would not be unconscionable i think you could be unconscionable when you talking about the statutory civil right reasonable that's the principle that's involved and i guess i would argue that that that it's not reasonable to limit statutory civil rights specially race discrimination cases considering the history of heart  are changing the workplace for the better that are allowing our i mean i worked on a case and i think he sets where there wasn't a single f b i agent above special agent level that was nine hundred eighty six we've got a long way to go that these laws are done a lot to move to society for and we should not allow the congress hasn't done this congress in fact congress says you can't go over four years right congress doesn't go over four years but you can go under four years you want congress to draw the line i don't think congress has sat in the loose forward kids of course he's going to want to job will probably do anything he probably agree to one week that he really want to there's such a disparity of bargaining power and such strong policy reasons that no he should not be able to want to know what it means want to means put food on his on the table to feed his family there he should not have the choice to make that choice now if we're talking about the commercial contracts we're talking about the parties are united he's a contract we're talking about parties of equal bargaining power sure they should be able statute of limitations courts were required to engage in an analysis of what was the most closely analogous state statute of limitations to determine what was reasonable as your honor has noted before you can determine whether world that regardless of right you have the same right to make force contracts cardless words to characterize what the limitations what this restriction that their respective obligations rights and remedies with respect to the employment relationship established by this agreement and all disputes of whatever nature arising out of this employment relationship shall be governed exclusively by such federal law and shall not agreement in the other is the employee relationship established here under and then it goes on later to talk about the employment relationship with respect to the choice of operative and then the agreement with respect to the limitations period matter of contract interpretation your honor i think you have to take the entire paragraph as a whole and the entire claimant as a whole so to a certain extent parsing out just paragraph twenty and not looking at paragraph one which creates the employment relationship but i can't interpret it and when i do i don't see the ambiguity that you see and in part because so many of these contracts including this one are so commonly used in the industry to do both of those things to create the employment contract with each of its employees on a fishing vessel that satisfies certain statutory criteria and some additional common law criteria that have arisen over the years so consequently i think that you have to put it in in context if because there isn't another one out there and fishing companies go searching recruiting and trying to find employees for these jobs all the time it's very easy for an experienced fisherman to change companies and very common for a fishermen's something spirits to change employers we also get our people from all over the globe as well as all over the country witnessed mr lubbers was from louisiana let me ask you can we get a more specific is there anything about you know you don't think that it's a legal action that you have an initiator in many respects albeit an administrative legal remedy that you're seeking but ultimately what you have is a situation where this could go on indefinitely if you  period of time is six months reasonable this circuit has held on many occasions that six months or one hundred eighty days is reasonable congress has held on at least two occasions both with titles florida we apply in deciding whether or not it's yet that is that is something of an issue at this point the question is do we look at the federal that has evolved or do we look at the basic state law contractual interpretation and construction law and i think that we have to be careful not to confuse think you look to state launch to determine whether or not you enforce that contract with out resort to the underline substantive law in washington state even if you do look to the underlying substan law the adler versus fred something man or it's a new case to the i think there's some problems in language in there because it purports to tell you the ninth circuit what you do and what you have held and i think they got it wrong that