our final case for today is grants against trustees of indiana university and i believe you will hear from mr grant specifically claiming that mr grant claimed to have been on the faculty of boston's they clicked howard university california state used a grant of course simply pointed out you know he worked on this campus for private contractors and it's on his application that he did not work at places as a faculty member but for some reason and we had we pretty much know the reason he continued on this he brought mr grant before the faculty misconduct committee two thousand and nine with those charges the faculty misconduct committee and  it's this right there and and the record said that there's there's no reason to have a hearing and that even if these things were true it's not enough to lose committee he had ten days which to present his issues he did not and you can see why because the there's no instances on the record at the back of the misconduct committee to not go by the policies there's no issue on the record that i could have this kind of committee did not take in all consideration there is nothing on that after it went to when i'm a wreck that then chance assigned to assign the issue to claim i'm klink as a private investor the private investigator looked into these things and came up with the same facts that  the factory misconduct committee now per our u s b policy if you going to use the klink report the clink report has to go back to the faculty misconduct  with the same as with the faculty misconduct committee looked at and said based on best you're terminated while i us be in order for a person to be terminated they must go through a promotion that he have a property interests in his position and that property interests is written within the policies of indiana university south bend indiana university south bend recognizes this state specifically and order for faculty member to be terminated they must have a hearing they must be found guilty and based on that that goes to the was he was never an employee of the these institutions and it misses it on his application so it is a issue of fact if he did not put it on his application grant one is that in cases like this you know our job isn't to review per se what the trustees of indiana university did or whoever was the responsible person at us be it's to ask whether the reason they quit whether any rational trier of fact could find it the reason they gave for their action was a was an illegal reason was a discriminatory reason or not and secondarily i mean one of the things you've emphasized is whether you've got enough process an opportunity to present your side that you certainly presented your side on a lot of different occasions through this period you gave lengthy you know forty three page response on april twenty fifth twenty fifth and you gave forty two page response september twenty third i mean nobody was rushing into anything about this it took quite a while for things to happen so i think it's important to remember the the limited scope of what we're able to do yes your honor and i want to make sure that we don't confuse the response w issue here is that you when you're agreed then you've got plenty of process not oh i can't imagine how much more is it is that the idea here your honor is what i processed you think you should have had that you didn't have the process that's person's property rights and without some kind of due process that we evaluate whether there was due process independently of whether there was perfect compliance with the institution's rules in this case the idea is is do simply does not follow those processes then what's the recourse so for example well state law is the short answer made maybe there is some state right i mean are you says of course that there hand book is not a contract and maybe if you want to save some of your comments to respond to what they have to say this would be the time to do that state institution at that protecting the education of students with whom or that have been trusted their education with this this university to judge what i think you put your thought right on this case in terms of you know two key questions that are presented want to courses was there a legitimate reason for the termination decision and absolutely there was and i want to be cognizant of this court's opinion last month in ortiz but i thought judge fundamental question that ortiz now asked us to today answer and that is is there any evidence here that would indicate that there would be a different result assuming that mr graham was of a different race but all things remain the same and the answer to that is is merely no there is absolutely no evidence or to recognize and recognize is that all evidence is evidence but in this case there was absolutely no evidence as an example judge pratt in her well reasoned opinion looked at the mcdonnell douglas test which ortiz does not upset and in doing so noted that there was not only no evidence but no argument on the similarly situated component of that test which which which doesn't allow us to get past the prima facia case i think more fun denton's and to this song gets started you know obviously you know mr grant is doing quite well teaching theirs is the record seems to indicate until the two thousand and eight complaints come the school way and then the further they dig the more they continue to dig up until the time they hire the clink firm which you know gives its report and i guess that's what's the real trigger for the final action  that's right your honor we don't have a great history in terms of the the function of the search and review committee but tenure is not a license to have misrepresented credentials as not a blessing of that of that cond that would mean deviation from the standard procedures of the university be some indication some evidence of discrimination i think that could be a factor that the court could consider but there was no deviation in review committee also review this decision that was there's no there is no requirement there is no requirement there were there was that requirement and the prior to two thousand and one version of the the handbooks but that then went then was revised there's way then it goes to the chancellor then the next step is of course the faculty border review so you're telling us that once it's in the chancellor's hands it doesn't need to go back down again so to speak to this faculty committee it does not  there are there's of additional provisions actually in the in the handbook your honor that talks about this proceeding on with the faculty board of review in particular will hear the faculty board of review eventually gets the case but then mr grant decides he's not going to follow through right that's correct so the you know he had the opportunity to be heard multiple times  but we received approximately six hundred discovery question i think and and in approximation we responded to those because it was our obligations and we provided those records related to the affirmative action complaints and all those issues of course were dealt with appropriately i think by the magistrate in the industry or judge on the faculty board a review a hearing which ran not only had an opportunity for that but i think had an opportunity before his terminations to pursue that wreck for inform him of course that he had that right mr grant indicated i think within a day or two that he intended to pursue that right a couple weeks it passed she began to form mr grant that it would be court's precedent on that subject i don't believe there was any evidence whatsoever of a similar sit with be situated compared to or certainly not evidence of pretext to upset the district court's sound decision on  the problem here your honor is that when mr graham put in for the maid there from a batch of complaints there's absolutely no evidence that they even looked at his complaints they didn't conduct an investigation they didn't talk to witnesses they didn't do anything so so now he's here saying well we did do something well show me there's nothing here it's a matter of fact the to turn to who was opposite they asked her to keep the case on one of the cases on the are you a big campus scuse me instead of i use campus well mr grant never spoke to dietrich turner there's no evidence that she ever investigated anything so these are the courts have said that a failure to investigate may allow the jury to impose liability for the federal courts if he puts in a bit but shouldn't you have followed up on that that happened a long time ago and typically there's a two year statute of limitations in indiana for mr grant adds for the student complaints because it was news to him in the deposition they acknowledged no no students complained it was a pretext they just simply went to the newspaper to say it and not only that economics if we put in discrimination complaints in the discrimination complaints are not investigated this simply ignored the message issue for the federal court to look at i there's policies and procedures that they can own property interests and they do not go with that the knesset interests of the federal court that's all we're saying