first case on calendars anger city in new york well here you know morning your honor thank you and behalf of the appellant my name is brian hussey for the marrying this is a case which has a lot of issues fact that the equal pay act is not a specific intent is no intent no intent lack of intent offense as set forth in my reply brief this court has said that employment discrimination cases are not completely subject to the tumbly it pull specificity requirements it's a flexible it didn't we don't didn't we also say in the port authority case that in an equal pay act case it's necessary to describe the duties not just to say everybody does the same work but to explain exactly what they do yes sir and i think that i try to make the distinction that they will have a class action of hundreds of attorneys and we have four criminals to use in a crime lab in jamaica oh wait you have four criminals to use except you allege in the complaint that one of them is a criminalist for that's on paragraph one thousand of your complaint and then you say  the job duties of the plaintiff are attached as exhibit to the job duties of the comparative are described in exhibit one end or exhibit two and exhibit two describes four different jobs for four different types of managerial criminalists so how are we to know that there are how does that add up to they all do the same work well the my point on that that is it's at least an allegation for pleading purposes if the court wants more specificity the district court is required to ask you for more specificity and you gave it exhibit two correct that's and the plaintiff alleged i believe paragraph fourteen that they were her job duties and the next parallel which one of the four is her job duties and which one of the four are the job duties of the other three it's not in the record with her going by the phrase the complaint well i'm going by the face of the complaint i'm asking you what in the complaint tells us which of these jobs if any i guess has to be one of them because the point of says her duties  described in exhibit two you don't even say that the other three is jobs are described in exhibit two you say either one or two and in two you've got four different jobs described with different responsibilities i submit that different functions of the same classification but the district court rejected that is exhibit two saying that it was and didn't indicate the source i don't think that's required for putting purposes the plaintiff allege that's not what i meant i'm not asking you the source you could have made it up out of your head because you're allowed to allege in the complaint what the duties are i'm not concerned about the source i'm concerned about what is alleged and does it tell us that all these four people do the same work or does it tell us that maybe they will do different jobs comparable similar not that different all in the same for fashion but different ok i mean well if you were given we have to plead again what would you tell us i mean what do you what are the what does she do every day and how and what does john doe number one let's say do every day my clients advise me that they all and to me i didn't know i should have i guess i should have alleged for each of the three of the chremylus but in terms of the flexible plausibility standard i have asked the court to consider the allegations of the american points of paragraph twenty five and twenty six that we district court judge in a different case brought by a female police officer that doesn't speak to job classification but it does because ability and the this is i could understand this more easily i'm outta my understand accounts but i could understand this more easily if the parties were strangers before this but it's the employer then all of whatever the lab does this is a form to murder really and i didn't think they were enforced to this degree in an employment discrimination case especially one that is not a title seven with any intentional element it's the status offense and the i guess the i mentioned in my brief that i had looked at the court's forms and i don't know i didn't see in that label those forms a strictly pro se but they were box checking demurring too and if it weren't for the equal case they probably never been made and i thought that the subsequent cases by this court and said that that rule doesn't apply in strictly or in employment and statutory substantially equal work as my adversary just essentially said he basically says well i guess the allegations could be conclusory and that he would need an opportunity for another opportunity for leave to amend the first complaint certainly was why isn't it enough to say these are the responsibilities of criminalists we've got three criminal minds here and this is my plaintiff is paid one thousand dollars less than the others well i think that none of the allegations or not we're i think the first allegations conclusory we are all criminal is the same title and we do substantially similar or lesser things that's not enough because there is no possible allegations about job content job title is not enough well i  hussey a hard time of that exhibit to never give you a hard time that exhibit two when you look at the they are all different there are four different categories of section managers and so little perplexing because i don't know exactly that all these four people are managers if they're all sitting there all day running lab tests but nevertheless there are four different manager jobs but the actual list of things for each one are strikingly similar are they not i mean for example i mean can you tell me something that the scientific section manager criminalistics does that distinct from what the scientific section manager controlled substance analysis program does i think the first thing is that this was a document that he attached i don't think that he doesn't say where comes from i think it's hard to believe they all suppose he just alleged this in the complaint suppose he didn't attach a purported document that comes from the implication is somewhere in the police department but just alleged here's what the duties are and listed all the things that are on exhibit two you wouldn't be asking him where do you get that if it turns out it's wrong if it turns out that he's made it up out of his head in violated rule eleven that will come out and there will be sanctions but i don't think there is is there anything in our case law that says there has to be it has to be something from the job manual and it same or different from her colleagues it's really not clear what part of that exhibit refers to her duties what could refer to their duties whether the same or not it seems that there's a huge glossing over here in the unwillingness to make clear factual allegations about what what is different between the four jobs and force in your honor the motion to say yes i understand it's not in the record i understand but but in fact just as mr has he seems not to have a lot of details here my concerns are we talking about something real or are we talking about a sloppy complaint are we talking about a real problem that in fact these people do radically different jobs and the point of this trying to plead around that  get discovery and subject the city to a lot of expense but kind of hiding the ball that they will do something different or as jacob suggested what if they all sit at the same counter each doing lab tests and one day one does  other one does drugs and the next day they're bored so they switch and they basically are all doing the same thing if that's really true and this is just a case of sloppy pleading where dismissing a case with prejudice where there's a pretty clear allegation by somebody who sits in the room with the other three that we all do the same work right but it is this large that goes with equal pay i think there's another problem with the allegation where she is the plaintiff also alleges that there is a woman who does make more money than she does that one is a more junior woman to apply to her and if you look at even exhibit one which is the job it's not that every person makes the exact same amount of money in this title when one person makes more money and is he's a man of her age roughly and the other is woman who makes more money and is of the same sex but is young right so i mean you know you only have three people so me so many variables you can you can in the in the in the in the elements of this difference in experience or education or i think that there's no element for equal pay act that has to do with experience or traditions effect where people get it  does where when where would i find it i think it's i'm sorry or i think it falls into an analysis of the job content if you explain this is what the job is perhaps someone who's more experience does different things for different reasons their duties are somewhat different or they have so much said different experience in that spot because different skills would explain why so i think it would go into the other else of content basically what you can't do here is to basically say ok we all do substantially equal work not lay out the facts explaining well he's a read been given an opportunity by the district court this would be this court giving him a third opportunity after the district court rejected his opportunity twice and both took both times the district court said what you need to do was pleased about the content us so i don't know that having been lightened at  this point is enough to to remain and say that it should go back to the district court for a third chance certainly this is a plea if it was counsel and is charged with the knowledge of of the laws being able to research and figure out what it's what is needed what is need to state a claim but certainly what was offered what seems to be offered so far is just to attach more things or touch or add numbers to the allegations from those pages and that's not that's not enough i alleged to make eleven thousand more than point if he's described in the complaint as a criminalist for and according to exhibit one of criminals for could make as much as thirty thousand dollars more than a criminal two  that was all they were all to use in the first column where else he says they're old so i understand if it was a foreigner but we just didn't make that point because we thought that it was unlikely this is a four because the four would have two males who were roughly contemporary so the total of three people with reference to the to leave the it's up to this court i mean it it's it's it's the court the employer's use of rejection letter that was previously disapproved by the southern district in another case and if they want to put the letter in the next complaint i'll put the depend on the next complaint but i think it's really a three criminalists have work to do and if the work is described as being the same or similar and i think you probably have to say that they're at their experience and education was the same or similar in order to to demonstrate equal skill in and in performing it and that's all you need to do you don't have to like provide opinions from other case and with reference to exhibit one it's clearly a job listing and it sets forth how to apply for the job and so it's what the four pay ranges and the job duties are exhibit two and i apologize apparently not make that clear in the complaint  briefly to a different question of where you sit down the district court also dismissed the various state law claims which are not equal pay act claims there's no state equivalent that's a strict liability thing  these are discrimination claims what is there in the complaint that would plausibly allege that there was intentional discrimination on the basis of either age or sex don't think it alleges intentional judge and i don't know that i could could honestly do that this is but i would state that i did provide citations in the reply brief that this court in belasco has said that the new york city administrative c