i would hope not but in that case i would think would be relatively difficult to show that discrimination played any role in the to deny his security clearance prior to his that process was still pending when he was suspended without pay ok but with the temporary removal he could not he did not he was not qualified to do his job because he could not have access to confidential classified information which he needed to do his job yes but your arm of the supreme court has said in work with  discrimination for example mixed motive theory we have here that it's unnecessary to say from the outset you're qualified for example in this case even assuming that dr mack was unqualified let let's even assume he was he was unqualified when he was suspended they still could have taken other action they could have kept him on paper as they had two years they could have transferred as had been done in the case of another employee and in to an individual who doesn't have a security you're your honor we do provide a few specifics about this other individual at pages j eighty three and eighty four we know that the person work they took a different action with respect to him than they would have had he not been an arab and a muslim the government violated title seven under the mixed motive theory dr mackey that without ever challenging the validity of  it was the entire basis but we have a claim that it was not that different action would have resulted had it not been for discriminatory anonymous and given our given opportunity to prove what would have problem i'm having slide back and forth once the security clearance was the night by definition he could not perform his job well and that was before hearing suspended at that point there was an initial determination that was not a final determination he was still testing that attorney but he was disqualified as hong as was being considered now yes on final determination they decided that he deserved the six security clearance then we could go back and look at the women and her actions which resulted in his suspension because he could claim i should have been qualified the whole time but he was disqualified but even even after that initial all roads lead to rome situation you cannot get there now even if you were to say well i should have been tryin he would say yes how can you prove he was similarly situated to somebody else even somebody you know what you're saying is he can't prove it are going to proceed under water house or motive then you have to show trying to prove that there was direct evidence back i mean maybe i'm just the remedy under that case though i think is there not a remedy under desert house for the acts of discrimination if we have adopt me reinstate the job because i believe that would be judged on a summary judgment qualification issue whether or not there's any validity to the first one or any proof of id discrimination we don't but that's the case but essentially there are two  we're in he go back then and challenge the initial would grow and any action in the interim as being at least partly motivated by so you can do that but oh that's interesting because that's where the case get somewhat muddy those reasons you know his foreign and associates cetera that all goes to whether or not he was not security clear at least in their in their assessment so i wouldn't be so quick to say we have to scrutinize every actor that the government with every every look that he receives and give  what happened with the security whether they nonetheless had to act in an employment sense against him when they did whether they had to suspend him without a rather than transfer and whether whether you know what i think i don't know if there was an arguable risk of national security they had to say that actually you're gonna be the government's own evidence the with memorandum that the district court improperly used to just discount the allegation