ruin his career but he doesn't you're listening facts about what that includes other than to say that certain stamp harbored the belief that he was not in trouble because of his race that's all he says about this alleged hostile environment created by sergeant stamped he goes on to say that because of certain states actions he filed a complaint in march of two thousand and thirteen that he fort worth is the sixteenth at the time was the sixteenth largest city in the nation with a police force of over that was not the chief's role he dealt with policy and outside matters he had as deputy chief running the day to day affairs of the department but nonetheless he took sergeant johnson's complaint seriously and met with them sergeant johnson then asked to be transferred out of the traffic division where all of this occurred he wanted to go to the jail division he got transferred to a patrol position that he didn't want again chief paul said goes out of his way to accommodate sergeant johnson and return him to the traffic division where he then said he wanted to go back to when he gets back to the traffic division he complains he puts in his complaint he still wasn't treated well and we get a glimpse even though we're here on a pleading stage motion and the facts are less important in the law that i'll get to in just a second in paragraph fourteen of the first a minute complaint we get a glimpse of some reality here were plaintiff says that after he was returned to the craft division a different deputy it so we get to the law in this case and this is really a interesting situation where we have a qualified immunity case and a plain who has sort of dug in his heels and said i don't have to show you what clearly established law is and that is despite the repeated pronouncements from the supreme court on the subject this court's vand case from earlier this year which  of the case and i'll give you some concrete explanations as to why that didn't happen here on page nineteen of the plaintiff's brief and in this case the plaintiff's brief is the district court's opinion he simply cut and paste the district court's reasoning into his brief and so what the district court found is what is being argued on appeal by the apple e on page nineteen he says it's baffling that we're arguing about clearly established law and here's why this is the clearly  established law he says the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibits racial discrimination and he goes on to repeat the same formulation for his three causes of action well that is exactly the formulation that the supreme court has rejected in the al example it said the general proposition for example that an unreasonable search receiver violates the fourth amendment is a little help in determining whether the violence of nature of particular conduct is clearly established very recently the  exact same language that tara can't you get a high level of generality and we get these cases all the time is right we do it all the time it's usually more in the fourth amendment type context but so why here if the coleman report sufficiently establishes that there was a hostile work environment based on race what notice was your client lacking that that's on the awful coleman report again speaks in generalities and parties and when it talks about the department says the think that in a common report repeatedly says things like that so then the issue becomes did whole stead was he indifferent to it did he know about it and that's the and that's where you think there's not sufficient allegations use terms in the coleman report that are not applicable but when you look at the facts that are alleged the hostile environment is so lacking in any specific allegations to meet our courts hostile environment test you've got to have a severe serious continuous opprobrious barrage of racial problems and we have here an incident there was a complaint that was investigated and he was cleared and then we have sergeant stamp making a comment to him self or somebody that in the comment or johnson was repeatedly subjected to behavior that was hostile intimidating him bullying and it was done publicly over a period of more than three years legally conclusory terminology was beginning with end and just one more case on that point your honor earlier this year the tenth circuit issued the not scale you know p f versus williams case eighty four fed thirty nine thirty nine the language in that case was have to rely on and this is all i'm going to rely on and i'm normally we're here arguing about well the case is that claims of science are really not factually on point and they're specific but not to this case here the point of saying i don't have to do it and i'm not going to do it and i t's just an interesting situation where for the reasons that forth and van and the studios alone this court can say that's it there's no place it hasn't met its burden to overcome qualified immunity but moving on to the cause of action are three causes of action left in this case one is a hostile work environment and two are retaliation claims and again it's not our burden to this proved clearly established law and the castle vs city grabbling case makes it very clear that claim and it doesn't the feat qualified immunity would be the basis for allowing it on sex and not on race because they're looking at the difference between environment is recognizable and if you go to the guys even if race is only more suspect once you're in a lot of the constitution not in the world of races only more suspect structure scrutiny as opposed to intermediate scrutiny for sex discrimination so why if we've recognized  simply not analyzed correctly the city calling on to use another whiten term this morning of the nine hundred eighty three claim is a personal involvement by the defendant to shoehorn that into a supervisory liability claim you have to meet a demanding standard of deliberate indifference and i don't want to spend more time on that because i'm short on it but moving on to claims there was no adverse employment action taken the transfer was a transfer to a comparable level position he had the same responsibilities it went from traffic to patrol which certainly didn't the crease the level of responsibility or prestige or room for advancement he makes none of these allegations brooks the burning feel versus that if you think that i think addresses that question and the additional faces i submitted in the twenty books versus firestone that this very claim of having gotten less over time which he doesn't talk about other than to say he got less overtime certainly is not a  me usually what evidence is in a pleading of of the cart causal link well we have the time you timing to show this was retaliation we have your allegation if you don't have anybody from the widespread knowledge of the hostile behavior insufficient actions were taken by members of the chain of command to stop the harassment that i've seen it appears the complainant and the complain the whole concept of this traffic divisions run by the sergeant state and what he did he had a key and he was allowed to continue to do these things with no re he said it was very apparent within the coleman report that even i made some very poor judgment decision and i apologize to anyone and everyone that i hurt a little over a year and a half ago were judgment doesn't rise to the level of constitutional violation i mean live in the apology too much is a little concerning because you know you want leaders of organization when it comes out that there were problems in the organization to to to be sympathetic to the victims and to apologize for what happened and if you turn that into this big piece of evidence against them the fact that they apologize for what was going on under them if you're going to discourage that kind of get the share of embezzling money that's clearly a matter of public concern just like a hostile work environment of police department the public is going to hear about that but it has to be done in his capacity as a retaliation claim for complaining about discrimination doesn't already have from a technical remedy some of the practical from a practical standpoint that maybe maybe that turns on the remedy are just i'm not sure but i wealthy usually they do a victim of brasil you go to the victims say listen would you like to go to the ship that never he was forced to go in there when he was there