with this court's instructions in moffitt versus the town of revealed which noted that coerced resignation does without due process are indeed violation of section nine hundred and thirty seven and it would conflict with a lot of other from the country which i consider this very issue did didn't really make a very strong distinction between cases in which somebody was forcibly terminated and cases in which somebody was put in a position where they resigned under duress wasn't that precisely what distinction that gig you were made and which was supreme court in its opinion not your mill if you cite so much lived up with and haven't we lived up with that distinction ever ever since so that because in your situation you could have asked for a hearing but you didn't before the reason so how are you in the situation in which you have been kicked out and us who are hearing before you  scheduled and that's brought about by the n y p d that's in their procedures but we did all we could do which was we said investigators were happy to sit down with investigators and indeed mr de blasio was scheduled to have an interview you know wh on her own all there was was the opportunity for an informal discussions which quite frankly happens for the crime where there are civil discussions where an employer might say we have him dead to rights on such and such an infraction will give you the opportunity to what we are and haven't have in our case is tell that that post terminations process is sufficient to address the needs of due process there are cases that suggest when there is that they're suffering that the workplace is so intolerable that they can't see new in those cases i would certainly agree that the employer is not in a position for see that their actions might result in an involuntary resignation but here that's precisely what the founders wanted was to avoid any processes where they didn't want to face the corruption issues they didn't want to look at those issues they wanted to avoid a lot of process and so they exerted extreme pressures which weren't  simpler been many other cases where bad boss ability you're getting a hearing before wasn't available again no pushback on that because in this case as opposed to other cases where the threat was terminations they could have proceeded hearing and that might also still result in terminations but here the police were facing adverse action weren't going to be able to be challenged in any process the demotions they didn't have protection in the higher r so by being demoted they would have immediately lost out on it on terms and conditions of their employment that could be redress anywhere and that is an extreme for the pharmacy to recognize that that was so extreme that the retirements were not altering the city knew that it was such a severe threat that if they employed that tactic it would avoid having to go through the due process and that is that's what we take issue here is that this is a loophole and end run around the due process that they should have provided it's a rare case i think that we would see that there are such a stream pressures that are able to be exerted that there would be age of process violation but i think this is one of those cases because of this very of the corrosion that was exerted on these plaintiffs again immediately if they refused to retire if they were there this case is different from all those other not information to avoid a risk of wrongful deprivation by the government or that's what the that's what the full blown hearing would have done what they appear to be asking for is additional information that would have made it give them a a better chance to make a better informed decision about whether to retire rather than to face disciplinary proceedings and that is simply not what the due process clause is meant to protect i think  process that they never actually asked for rights the crux of the plaintiff's argument in their briefs is that they were denied notice of the particular charges against them so that that could better inform their their decision about what terms upon which they might want to retire and by their own allegations there were days in fact or something tips weeks of back and forth between the plaintiffs and the department about whether the plaintiffs want to retire and if so on what terms they now claim that the deprivation of notice about the charges is what course them but they never wants during that lengthy back and forth ever even raise perhaps something that's required we in the hypothetical you've described your honor i believe that is the case because as i understand the hypothetical you've described a situation where they are demoted without any present motion because that yeah and and i don't know i think that you would have to balance the the the level of property interest against the burden of doing the pre present motion process i think that there i don't know  how exactly the chips would fall it would depend on the burton right and the existence e to the government of the demotion but again that's that's not this case because as they can see there's no property interest but i think that to the extent that there's a major motion without a priest a motion hearing that hinges on the exits didn't see of doing the demotion immediately i believe is how the chips fall in that hypothetical your honor but but because they have conceded right and that the law is clear that that they could be demoted it will on disability leave either you come back to work or your position is eliminated that's not notice of of a disciplinary infraction that he could defend in a disciplinary hearing that was a choice between either coming to work or having his position abolishes that's very similar to a choice between retiring or going forward with the ample procedural protections that are afforded in the disciplinary hearing violation and the rest of the case is all fine none that there's certain about the narrow situations where such a due process claim might arise but none of those come close to this case right here we have a two path to pass that the plaintiffs can pursue to have their due process rights afforded to them one is a pre depravation hearing a public hearing with witnesses to be subpoenaed discovery specific facts and circumstances of every case to determine what level processes ordered and here again there there was a loophole up there also concerns the sense and the  circuit which is that the venue can do as they have done here which is say we don't want to give you process we are going to exert pressure that is so severe there is no other option but to tender a