only basis for the dismissal of those claims was that dr karim failed to plead any discriminatory motive however i believe he successfully pled that discriminatory motive for four reasons st the services that dr karim would have provided at lincoln were instead provided by a not muslim white nd defendant falsely claiming that dr karim is prior employers that he had poor interpersonal skills which is a common stereotype of muslims three defendants ran roughshod over their own procedures including dr karim's right to see the accusations against him his right to respond to those allegations and his right to a timely ruling under this court's decision and manic or procedural irregularities are in and of themselves evidence of bias th there is an abundance of evidence the defendant's proffered bases for denying the credential is protected strong the information the doctor excuse me the information the defendants received about dr karim was overwhelmingly positive defendants ignored that positive evidence and instead relied upon fabricated negative reviews a government agency concluded that defendants denial of dr crean's credentials was baseless in order defendants to reconsider their decision but  defendants refused to reconsider in any meaningful fashion and when defendants were for finally challenged that there was no problem with mr with dr chremes interpersonal skills they manufacture a completely baseless reason for denying the credential which was that supposed lack of malpractise insurance i will now turn very briefly to dr karim's due process claim which is premised on both a property interest and liberty interest and i'll take the property interest st in greenwood this cour said that a physician's hospital credentials constitute a constitutionally protected property interest where the hospital's bylaws create due process rights and the credentials he or lincoln's bylaws explicitly promise physicians due process  and there are additional facts that support the property interest in this case to be very notable ones the st is that dr karim actually had a contract to do the da job for which he was receiving the credentials and nd that the two hundred and twenty dollars applications about which we received discovery lincoln did not deny any doctor's applications for credentials with respect to the liberty interest this case is just like the elmont and brant in those cases an employer said something so stigmatizing about individual that it would make it extremely difficult for the individual to obtain future employment that is precisely the case here dr karim has been unable to obtain employment since his credential was denied  defendants argue that dr karim has failed to satisfy the liberty interest claims temporary temporality requirement however in brandt this court held that if temporality requirement is satisfied so long as the defamatory statement is placed in the employee file close in time to the termination and that's it page forty five dollars that clearly happened here since defendants claim that they relied upon these statements in deciding not to issue the credential to d the plaintiff would be to put him quote between the devil and the deep blue sea that's bringing to page forty five dollars again and the court specifically rejected any rule that would put a plaintiff in such a position and that is exactly where dr karim stands today thank you very much of discriminatory motive and i realize you raised several points on that but just one of them i'm just puzzled about the structure of it you said the person who is now providing the services to the hospital that he would have provided is a non muslim and i'm just puzzled i thought i was under the impression that dr karim was offered a job by a practice group  but he could only have that job if he could get credentials is this non muslim doctor that you're talking about do you mean that's the person that was eventually hired to fill his slot understand the relationship between westchester neurological and the hospital normally when we have cases where a person of one race or gender is turned down for a job and says  well there's a reasonable inference of discrimination because the person who got the job was of a different race or gender it's the same employer and here i'm just trying to figure out you say the doctor who is providing the services that he would have provided but the services employment sense would be provided to westchester neurological i mean the way lincoln hires its doctors it has an affiliate called something like the practice group and that practice group retains the doctors and st westchester neurological was providing the services as far as we know west chester neurological was just two was the quote successor for westchester neurological ok i'm still having maybe i just noticed in the medical profession i always thought that maybe this is very old fashioned and or maybe it was always wrong that if i were a doctor and i had a particular kind of practice i could and i had a license i could open a practice all by myself and then if i if one of my patients needed to be hospitalized i would need to obtain privileges with a particular hospital is that not the structure of how this is actually working here i understand there's essentially two different kinds of types of ways that patients and doctors interact with each other at hospitals although i had to learn this for this case i must confess one is what your honor just described the other is the way i think it really works at lincoln where none of these doctors are admitting they're private patients at link and they're admitting they're private patients at some other hospital these doctors are being hired  provide services to the patients who show up at lincoln so you show up in lincoln because you're in a car accident you need brain surgery dr karim screwed anshul been granted he would have provided that brain surgery when it was rejected doctor to material wound up providing that brain surgery instead of dr karim and it's lincoln that decided which doctor was going to be providing that service to the ok thank you that's very helpful the other question is about the due process you said promise in other words if i say to somebody i'm going to be fair and i'm not going to do anything without having a trial with a transcript and a lawyer before i touch your or whatever or you know every applicant for a job is going to get th just as if they were getting tried for a crime in federal court why does that make a property interest rather than just a contractual promise that we're going to follow these procedures sure and i think it's not unrelated to the questions were being asked of the attorneys in the last case under the due process clause the constitution often looks to state law to determine whether there is a constitutionally protected property interest this court in green would look to the by laws of the government hospital to determine whether those the state law had extended a property interest in a credential and they looked at cases not only did they find that the bylaws didn't fact so isn't there a difference between saying if we hire you we're hiring you with tenure and you can't be fired except for the rest of your life except for  cause then there's a property interest and due process quicksand that's still different it seems to me from saying if you want to job here we promise we'll be fair in deciding whether to hire you  would i don't think that's true in this case because lincoln bylaws promise identical to process protections to a doctor who is applying for the st time to doctors and practicing there for thirty years both doctors are guaranteed to process ok thank you a person who took the job that he would have was not muslim is there any concrete evidence of discrimination here other than  that those are not that's not the only evidence in this case i think there's three other instances of evidence the st is that they manufactured a false claim about him that he had poor interpersonal skills and that's evidence of pretext but it's also because they chose a common stereotype of muslims poor interpersonal skills that is evidence of discriminatory motive the the rd piece of evidence of discrimination is the fact that they ran roughshod over their own person on the earth who claims that these negative statements were said about dr karim dr joffe talk to these supposedly negative reviewers and they said no such negative thing to him the people who provided the supposedly how they were had they done that they would have granted him credentials as the seven other hospitals that he'd applied to all uniformly granted him credentials in the past so they came out the opposite of seven of their predecessors and i don't you know i think karim independent contractor or prospective contract well i think that issue in the briefing comes up specifically in the context of the liberty interest prong of the due process claim and the defendant argue that because he wasn't obtaining government employment the liberty interest claim did not apply but in fact the courts as far as i'm aware uniformly hold that being an independent contractor  allegations so absurd so looking at the issue of whether or not the hospital acted on his application timely manner i would direct your honor to page one hundred and thirty five dollars of the record that explains the but what it means to thirty five was the record and didn't look at what he actually said there which again is ok for four years complete he said that there was no he had no knowledge of whether or not anyone even knew he was in the film he says nothing about his national finally i'll just turn on the issue of eating nothing in the federal rules that will fifteen a or any decision by the court require the district court to allow the pleading of entirely to tell king dr karim had an opportunity to or as i understood it the only somewhat negative information in the evaluations that were received were and i'm sure their negative one was from someone in arkansas from his residency program who said i can't recommend him one way or the other because he transferred out of the program before i got here and i don't know him and then someone in michigan  that didn't say you know well qualified it said something less than that and then with the opportunity to provide various criteria the boxes he checked had to do with interpersonal type skills denied saying that is that not in the complaint or why why wouldn't we think that that is at least enough to get a get past a motion to dismiss if your side says we have negative information but we can and say what it is or at least they wouldn't tell him what it is or at least he alleges in this complaint that he wasn't given the beat and if he says he has people denying what anything in this complaint you allege or supported inference of discrimination motivating the hospital's actions and even under the basis of the human rights laws relax the injured the answer would be no there's absolutely no honor i think i just have four points i would like to make the st is that my friend argues for the st time here that the state court litigation had no has some sort of precludes of effect this action concealed the identity of these people who gave the supposed negative reviews the moment that that information was provided to dr karim we were immediately able to disprove it and the state court litigation by laws to see is file so this idea that they were prohibited from showing this in this information to him during the process is simply false they were they were required to provide it to him and give him an opportunity to respond to with respect to the they claim there were no stigmatizing statements that were made about dr karim that requires the court to assume that rd party made these disparaging statements about him of course given that we've already disproven that that's the case the court disk is constrained on a motion to dismiss t for that in fact dr sure he made these negative statements and lincoln made these niggas statements not some rd party finally let me just simply say with respect to the complaint amendment to the extent there's any fact that we have  alleged or discussed or argued anywhere we are certain that is not in the complaint i don't believe that's the case but the extent it is the case we are certainly entitled under this court's precedents an opportunity to amend at this time as the court motion to dismiss ruling and as long as it specified either in the district court or to the court of appeals and we have certainly satisfied her obligation to do that and of course under pricewaterhouse coopers in this court's decision and back we have no obligation to allege stereotypes that's something the court can take judicial notice of thank you very much and the complaint or anywhere else on the record that the decision makers or decision maker lincoln was aware of your client is a muslim  yes absolutely i mean his his name is mohamed mohamed's in his name so the moment they saw his application they knew that they knew he was musl discovery we would like to be able to show that there were other similarly situated white non muslim applicants who you know maybe you know there were some forms here that were clearly incorrectly filled out and you know we would love to be able to show that when it came to white non muslim applicants they didn't even bother to follow up or they found them satisfactory or they did whatever they did but we haven't obtained that discovery i think we also want some additional discovery on metallica and the fact that he was a replacement and i think there are a host of other issues i will confess i did not represent dr karim but well i've just handled the appeal so i know there were a number of discovery requests that were outstanding