relies on explains that if the person is put off the promises by the exercise of a preexisting general policy  materially that we're talking about someone who has a job that requires a security clearance yes and that's the nature of the investigation i get it into context of tell more that first this is a pleading court case that's not a that was not the reason given by the agency for taking action in this particular case that's a summary judgment or a trial issue and that's most of what his case is all about he held a job that required security clearance said mormons many of the other counties the and placing him on administrative leave with pay was in connection the premises because there's been allegations which would affect your security for hers then that would be pushed too far into the court all right this is just something the government is saying the government is saying the stated reason hundred sixteen seventeen expressly a wedge that management believe that he did not need access to classified information and the analogy we use is you could be a truck driver needs a driver's license but if someone with a title truck driver is a warehouse man then the suspension of his driver's license by the state doesn't affect his ability to do the job these are fact questions we take the risk that we do discovery and we find out that we're wrong war at least you know somebody says yeah i  suggest that it's more efficient actually for this year's panel to ask a good judge leon what his thoughts on that are in light of his that's that's the law and the i don't think it's all been shot that title seven evidences a question is brown said because this can be remedied under title seven and you didn't bother to exhaust your been mistreated remedies under piles of it you can't bring this case under the out all the cases on national security on cases like cafeteria workers or the the more recent one colorado cases where it's a national security issue and the only when consistent with the interests of national security or plainly consistent the it out on our side we're trying to  respected and that's that's the challenge on the for example it may be the furthest we can go  in a constitutional is the court requiring the government to certify that the decision to deny a clearance was made by one of the next words that's describ that decision was actually made on the basis that the plaintiff cannot be trusted with classified material but these are not that's not a question that we may end up losing on the then and i and reading into those arguments don't present truly novel issues of wa either in the sense that they've been presented to other circuits are we multiple other circuits to consider them and found to be without merit  so we are in this are absolutely your honor but i would add that they reach those conclusions in opinions that are very much in keeping with this court's precedents and would require only a moderate and logical extension here was directed to the question of whether or not an adverse action is in fact a necessary fireman and an essential ingredient of a title seven line and the answer is it is in every single case in douglas v in the terms or conditions of point man so he's only relevant i just want to be clear what the government's position is i think it's this court's position douglas versus donovan that if somebody received a worst performance review on account of their race and there was a memo already established in the circuit as to that so then the only incremental step i'm asking this court to take is to recognize that ministry to leave which is just during the duration of investigation especially in context like this we're  talking about somebody who's a senior agent in the office of the chief security officer and has been accused of a crime of dishonesty big he's retaining his full salary full benefits no economic interest whatsoever and they're saying we don't want you to come into work for a few months while we figure things out and we're going to put things in a holding pattern until we can figure out what to do next and this is where he does have an allegation of knowing all he does have an allegation no falsity there that's right but that  we at least for purposes of this appeal argue this in terms of sort of a more generic title seven a lack of an adverse employment action as opposed to i know you're a senior official and you're place administrative leave on the basis of false accusations and the only reason this happens is the close of your race that's his allegation that his allegation is he was accused by the people who made the accusations knew they were false he used of corruption so your answer and yes my my my answer is yes you can put somebody in agency is and any employer actually can put somebody on administr engines even investigation and who are sure time as i said you know this is what half a dozen circuits already concluded if there are no more questions on count one i can switch to counts two  arguably this court could determine that any constitutional allegation would be huge oh i think this court absolutely can decide this pure issue of law  just by not giving any reasons whatsoever but we've sent lots of times that won't find in the be some discretion even where district court doesn't give reasons if we can discern the reasons from the record and if we can look at the complaint and say that it's futile then we can discern the reasons from the record well i don't think a good policy that's what we the court goes  well again is very matter of first impression i don't think he can says that a district court cannot require the government to certify that