issue. how to balance the expectations of privacy and inequality. in one of the most private area of our lives. rooms, andlocker public shower facilities. this was not a north carolina state agenda. no one in north carolina was talking about bathroom policy until the charlotte city council imposed a mandate on private businesses. withmandate required potential penalty of fine, access to restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities be based on one's gender identity or gender expression. a similar policy was rejected just months earlier by the voters of houston, texas by 61% of the vote. this caused major privacy concerns about males entering female facilities or females entering mail facilities. believed legislature this was an unnecessary government overreach into the private sector, imposing regulations and impacting ones personal privacy. the state legislature and this governor also believed that the guidelines then needed to be put into place because of this new public topic for government and our schools and allow fortops to privacy and expectation privacy for everyone. five days ago, the u.s. department of justice sent letters to my office, the department of public safety which reports to this governor and to the university system suggesting that having government employees use the bathroom, locker rooms, or shower facility that corresponds to their biological sex is in conflict with federal policy. the department of justice asked all parties to set aside their constitutional duty and refuse statelow or enforce our the u.s. government gave us a mere three business days to to this letter. we asked if the department of justice for additional time but they refused unless i made a statement where i would publicly their interpretation of federal law and if i did, they would give me one week to respond. i could not agree with that because i do not agree with federalterpretation of law. that is why this morning i have to clarifyeral court is. the law actually own i anticipate our legislature, other private entities from throughout the united states and possibly other states to join us in seeking this clarification because this is not just a north issue, this is now a national issue and an issue new law on every employerector ofoughout the united states america. we believe a court, rather than a federal agency, should tell state, our nation and employers across the country requires.aw and let me say something. one nation,s especially when it comes to fighting discrimination, which i wholeheartedly. ultimately, i think it's time for the u.s. congress to bring clarity to our national anti-discrimination provisions under title vii and title ix. let me repeat that one more time our u.s. representatives and the leaders of both the republican and parties in congress. ultimately, think it's time for congress to bring clarity to our national anti-discrimination provisions under title vii and title ix. the obama administration is bipassing togress by attempting rewrite the law and set basic policies, locker room policies and even shower and private public employers across the country, just north carolina. now, i am still asking the north legislature to reinstatement the ability to sue termination for discrimination in state court. i encourage them to do this and do it quickly. welcome additional dialogue with the city of charlotte and our state legislature which has been ongoing for the past week and i want to ensure the people of our and our country that north carolina has long held of ensuring equality. the majority of our citizens in this great state and this governor did not seek out this issue. however, the state of north carolina and this governor welcome the opportunity to be the solution for all of the states and especially our nation, the greatest nation, the united states of america. thank you very much. >> everybody hear me? good. the question -- i'm bob stevens. i'm governor mccrory's general counsel. p-h, thank you for answering. the question that was just asked a claim underwas title ix not asserted in this thatit and the answer to is, the title ix issue was the university system, not directed towards the governor, nor was it directed towards the department of public safety. the two claims that we addressed in our lawsuit. will makesity system their own decisions about what they want to do with that title ix issue. [inaudible question] >> do not know. my understanding is the board of governors is meeting tomorrow and my assumption is they will then and make a decision. [inaudible question] case.the graham they have not. it's important to note that. happened in the fourth circuit case, a split panel, 2-1, made a decision that the lower court,t, the had used the wrong evidentiary standard in deciding the case split panel was to send the decision back to the trialct court to have the over again so no mandate was court.to the district district court has not conducted proceedings. and until that happens, it is the federalin court, nor is it the law in north carolina. we now know that the case have in that petitioned the fourth circuit for a hearing before the full fourth circuit, all 15 judges. thatpetition was filed stayed everything opportunity this point. circuit has not yet ruled on that. until the fourth circuit rules, of northt the law carolina. and in fact, what you'll see in our complaint is there is no law in north carolina that answers some of the questions that we are raising. that's why we've gone to the court totry to get the do it. [inaudible question] you. -- you can't tell i'll give you -- i can't give you even an estimate. on whatoing to depend the other side does in this case. yearsa litigator for 40 before i became the governor's general counsel and i learned you can't -- you can't really anticipate what's going to happen. this should be decided on motions. we believe it should be decided very quickly and we hope it will be decided very inexpensivively. is there any common ground the the state has with department of justice that could avoid a long court battle? see if that'sto what happens. right now we simply have a says ourom them that to ase, which we refer violates title vii. [inaudible question] no conversation so the answer to your question is to believes no basis that. [inaudible question] this is our response to that deadline. question] >> it could be what? i'm sorry. question] >> well, we'll see. we'll see what happens. so this is our response we've met the deadline and now we'll go forward. questions. >> [inaudible question] >> i'd like to be able to dust and answertal ball these questions with specificity for you. it may be more than months but we really hope to expedite this thing. a declaratoryr judgment. then't need to get into weeds about what that means but in law declaratory judgment actions are given preference so we hope we will get this in front of the court and have it quickly.ery localstarted with a .rdinance [inaudible question] >> when you say it's the federal avernment, remember, this is letter. this is a letter from the department of justice that says have violated title vii. said, titlenor vii -- let me back up. specifically not violated title vii and if the believes thatment we have, they're going to need to go back to congress and get congress to change the law because right now, in spite of this letter says to us, the the justiceple that department are referring to are not a protected class under vii and until congress changes that, that's the law. therefore, doesn't violate that. much.nk you very general loretta lynch lays out the justice department's federal lawsuit against the state of north carolina over its law on public --troom access for trand transgender people, joined by a justice department civil rights lawyer working on the case, that the 25-minute briefing.