procedures for handling allegations of sexual harassment that if implemented could have actually resulted in discipline of the female student rather than term nation of the mill employee the ultimate legal issue here is whether the complaint pleads facts that support the minimal plausible inference of sexual discrimination well st address the district court's decision which relies primarily on dover says columbia and then i'll move on to supplemental briefing requested by this court i don't propose to review all the allegations in the complaint here but i didn't want to take off those that i believe demonstrate that this case is even stronger than the one in colombia  one requested by a group of students it was not actually pending and i think that goes a long way towards explaining why ms mone was so hostile to the plaintiff even at the very st meeting with them when she could not possibly have known what the facts were major difference to me a very critical difference in colombia they actually follow the procedures here made no pretense of following hofstra zone procedures and what your honor wrote in that case was as follows the failure of an was really nonexistent and in indication of that and also of the discriminatory animus is that ms moen was told face to face directly by senior hofstra administer the athletic director that he knew from his own personal knowledge that one of the students allegations was false and she disregarded that he's the only other male that participated in any way in this process so she completely disregarded what he told her and we turn back a bit now how do we know that he was terminated on account of the sex well you know that that's what this case is about we we pleaded i think sufficient allegations to indicate that's true no we can't prove it until we that was about a student's rights and the title nine and this is the case of an employee under the title seven right so the cases are legion that interrupted your  moen deceived the plaintiff she's a lawyer he's a layman she told him she was going to render a report and give him a copy which would have given him an opportunity in a fair way to respond to the allegations and she never did that in addition i think this case presents an extraordinary circumstance not only wasn't present in colombia but i think it's probably unique where hofstra at this very moment is not contesting in a related litigation ask you about haas through his claim that it was to manic or was fired for unprofessional conduct quote unquote as opposed to for sexual harassment how do you respond to that responded out a whole panoply of procedures that are intended to provide a fair due process in resolving these allegations which can have you know so much of an impact on everyone concerned and if  you know into something meaningless not follow them just because she says it's conduct some professional that it's totally pretext alive or now what about the littlejohn case  that the district court did not apply littlejohn's standard of minimal plaus required to get at the heart of of title seven that is discriminatory intent more specifically he did not allege any facts that could give rise to a minimal inference of gender discrimination in other words that he was terminated because he was a man throughout this case says today counsel has argued that this case is analogous if not stronger then versus columbia while we don't believe is is is  relevant because it doesn't volved a student on student claim which involves different sets of issues under title nine for purposes of argument we are willing to adopt the legal framework which i think does apply and the court in columbia this court did say that for example even if there are procedure irregularities and yes the plaintiff and alleged multiple procedural irregularities in his disciplinary hearing what the court said is those procedural irregularities are not enough to raise an inference of gender bias they might raise a general inference of bias but there there needs to be more than needs to be specific allegations to connect that bias to gender and there are no such allegations here one of the set of allegations in the complaint is that not just ms moen the deputy general counsel but all the individuals involved were women and somehow because women were involved and the male was the accused that that gives an inference of bias we've put forth cases to show that that is not the case that the law does not support that proposition similarly the allegation that ms moen was hostile to mr minnick i think the allegation is that she asked him a few questions initially in a hostile tone before showing him a document again complaint and i don't want to go beyond those but as alleged in the come point he the student came forward and made allegations of sexual harassment that's what she labeled them in her letter it was investigated again along the lines i'm not  debate the complaint but there's allegations that it was investigated not to the fullest extent that the plaintiff believes it should have been and that at the outcome of that investigation mr medicare was advised that he was being terminated for unprofessional conduct those are the allegat wanted an unwanted sexual harassment right wrecked and doesn't believe that accusation that was the label what hosty did was look at the underlying allegations what was that on wanted sexual conduct process in your view would not be applicable in a situation where you do with unprofessional conduct rather than sexual harassment the answer to that is yes but i think there are additional reasons in this case why the procedures that were followed were followed in terms of how the investigation was conducted who conducted it the policy is the university discretion and how to conduct an investigation of sexual harassment thank you judge there's something about the issue of unprofessional conduct it says that monet didn't form plaintiff's miller super informed plaintiff that he was fired fired for unprofessional conduct but then the next sentence says his employment was being terminated based on the totality of the allegations in other words there's a connection here between the allegations of the student who is making the who allege the sexual harassment against the plaintiff here and the unprofessional conduct is there not and the words is all wrapped up in accordance with paragraph forty three dollars we have to conclude that those are one and the same are they not the allegations on which the again i'm not i'm not i'm bound by the complaint and i don't want to get into evidence beyond this but based on this complaint and based on this particular allegation mr manager was allegedly told that he was being terminated for unprofessional conduct and the totality of the allegation that is that's the point i'm trying to get the student alleged sexual harassment the university investigated those allegations and made finds and you didn't need to find necessarily that there was sexual harassment and wasn't it found again based on these allegations and based on the complaint it found unprofessional conduct but the issue here your honor is what in the way that the university handled this matter did it handle it in a manner that suggests there was gender bias and we submit again that there is nothing in this pleading that suggests that there was simply because somebody alleges sexual harassment the conduct ultimately that could be determined and again as a speech hypothetically can can be unprofessional it may not rise to the level sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and substantially impacts in a student's ability to participate in the end occasional experience that's the definition of sexual harassment of the title no i'm conduct can be inappropriate it can be  color it can be a professor can be juvenile the same conduct as someone alleges a sexual harassment could be found to be not that but something else that was the label that she used and so i think getting tied up in what the allegations were versus what the findings are is not the focus here it's the focus should be on was there gender bias is there any allegation of gender bias and going back to columbia university the  believe as this court held was the wealth of allegations about issues of gender on campus they had twenty three lawsuits or claims that have been filed with the office of civil rights there were student protests the new york post wrote an article about columbia dropping the ball on jocks that male athletes were getting preferential treatment in these hearings the particular investigator in that case had previously been accused publicly of the having gender bias and how she investigated complaints all of those allegations taken together let this let this lead this court to conclude that there were sufficient allegations of gender bias and how those individuals proceeded there are no such allegations in this case there are some very general allegations about o c r investigations and students at hofstra talking about sexual assault by other students and has nothing to do with the type of issue we're talking about here which was non was guilty run professional conduct based on the totality of the circumstances correct that's what the allegation is at this point yes true didn't say you have any reallocations the credit is that right again i can't go beyond the complaint and so on it's not in the complaint and so i don't want to go beyond that i think based upon these allegations that there's nothing to suggest that there was in any improper come has been completed there's a motion to amend that's pending but that set of allegations are for sexual harassment under title no i as the court can imagine there are in the complaint argumentative an over the top allegations to which yes you did consider yes can you say that a female coach would have been fired on the similar circumstances i think so i would say that and you did reach this decision without holding a hearing is that right a hearing as described under the policy correct there was no hearing so mr manager didn't have much of an opportunity to defend themselves that i would dispute that based upon his own allegations in the complaint provide more documents they came back and they met again he could have provided a response and more information mr manning heard the st of these meetings learned about the title nine letters letter and that's correct and the nd meeting with where he was fired right now there's a nd meeting alleged just about a week after the st meeting in early august ms moen asked him at the st meeting to collect all his communications with the students and to come back and meet with her and he did witnesses that mr manicure and identified that's not in this record and i don't want to go beyond the allegations in the complaint i know this is not a title seven case but would you say there is a little sad case i'm sorry game nevertheless fired managers that are right that is correct your honor and the allegations that the student made again of the underlying conduct there you could question based upon the allegations today what were the student motives at the time the student had raised an issue about her her scholarship the underlying conduct was looked at i know that this court asked us in supplemental briefing about issues of  act with the spirit twenty mode has to act with gender bias or in the stab case it was bias against people in the military here the students bias was not gender she is not that she had anything against mr medicare because he was a man the allegation by mr medicare is that the student wanted him out or wanted something different because she wanted more money and so that is a critical element that is missing here and then rd the university has to rely upon that  did a quick look at the complaint and i believe they were just so they were sourced meeting ms miller was very hostile to him and he denied the allegations and she told him that she was going to render a report which indicates that she he'd have a fair chance to respond to the allegations she's going to make a report and he could respond in the nd meeting she called didn't tell him why he was canned that's that's what happened in your honor act ask under hospice procedures that was the nine to him posing counsel mention one of the allegations in the student's complaint which was the one about yelling obscenities at female tennis players the other team a the very allegation that athletic director hathaway told ms moen was untrue and he never really got an opportunity to put all that together in so you know the the argument that he  was terminated because of unprofessional conduct is really you know a pretext one that had nothing to do with his being in that role employee which is something the court asked about either title nine or ho general all at will employees could be fired for totally discriminatory reasons without recourse to to title seven so that can't be right as a matter of law i don't have and can't be the only gives one a basis for  entitle to it was a hearing in front of the university harassment review board miss mone had no authority under his policy to terminate him she was just supposed to say it was reasonable that's by the principals and its students faculty staff of ministers have a right to be free from unlawful harassment within the community and i think his judge winner wrote in the cox case false allegations of sexual harassment or themselves sexual capable argument very much