the particular conduct of the defendant in the particular circumstances in our weather these claims cannot survive that requirement of by the unity sovereign immunity bar is whether these claims against  five years that means there is no ongoing constitutional violation and so ex parte is not people as a qualified immunity earlier in this case with court concluded that whether things the test looks to whether the st amendment is invoked at all now the court balance these factors and concluded that whether these articles predominantly address tenure as an institution as opposed to his personal complaints about his job experience or even his personal complaints about his employer texas tap but that was not a foregone conclusion in two thousand and thirty of the time he acted no conducted that same context specific analysis under conic content context and form and it can't come out differently it just for court said whether the speech was not protected when we have a federal district judge coming out the other way particularly in a balancing test which is very fact intensive the court should think long and hard before holding a public official liable for damages because he made the same credited or of whether these myriad complaints none of those four is actionable and none of the other ones are either the st one let me ask you that because the so i understand your point about not clearly established and that is the matter but let's assume or here and there we get past that and we get to the question of whether it did in fact is employment you know way that allows for the levy what about this notion that the defendant will have to balance these two lines of case that is analyzed their progeny analyze the principles behind them and try to come up with his own legal document as to whether the compensation i in the passive voice that this teaching schedule change resulted in that's a quote a decrease in his compensation nine hundred and eighty three liability requires intentional conduct and qualified immunity analyzes the facts as they were known to the and so whether he needs to allege that neil at the very least knew that this result would occur there's no allegation of that in the complaint and there is no no plausible indication in the because that would seem to be relevant because it would seem like dr mayo would know that i mean other words in the school everybody kind of knows you may not exactly what professor x is getting hey but if there's a general principle they graduate classes get paid more to the professors an undergraduate classes i would think everyone would know that it's a kind of thing has no and it was not true then why are we here you know i mean i was all the panel six don't know because it isn't in the record but now you know i could do some independent investigation of how it works at texas tech in order to find out but that so would even if i didn't know the answer that would be a basis for the court to rule because it's not in the believe so your honor we can only draw inferences from the pleadings that are plausibly supported by facts and there are no underlying facts explaining this in this record there's no indication how what it's passive voice we don't even we don't know what the result was the result of we don't know what caused it and so on but in any event even if neil did know there was no clearly established law that would have put him on fair notice that the compensation reduction cases rather than the administrative duties and teaching assignments control by august term if there are no further questions on that lost access to these research funds but the court has said time and time again these are the kind of administrative matters that are not constitutional injuries and that will not be heard in federal court indeed in the all or case al even if so no clearly established law so that theory cannot survive before abbott's employment action of the district court credited was to say that whether he was quote demoted to a professor of practice fact intensive and so it's quite difficult for the court to say yes this violates clearly established law so qualified immunity is over common as the court explains in the pre case almost no one more thing about the professor practice allegation if the court looks to be attachments to the pleadings there it is it's evident that a different university official imposed this rule and it was based on a generally a poli young claim but whether b agrees that williams has never retaliated against him and it's been five years since the last retaliation as the ex parte young is unavailable we're over him and actually please the court this st amendment case shows why a qualified immunity should be denied the lands they all in white tenure in academia so all former dean lance nail the very person who retaliate known that what he did was wrong and in violation constitution decree is distinguishable because in that case the plaintiff did not suffer a loss of compensation here weatherby did suff building he was pretty explain how he was treated and i guess what i'm saying is we had these cases about we don't we've of course don't get in the middle of teaching assignments we have the theory out there isn't that you tell me where that would put you in the mindset if you were carefully reading all these cases as d n a all at the time how would you know that what you were doing was a constitutional violation by giving him a pay cut in a pay cut has repeatedly been helped by losing money at employment concept that tell me how that fits with this whole teaching we don't get in the middle of assignments point well i'll just go back to the this court has applied that pay cut test to a multitude of fact patterns to police men to city employees ringback so this is medically applied across the board to government workers and so whether he received damages in excess of half a tell me the cases that involved teachers and violations of the st amendment and reduction in pay you've focused me on that i don't have a particular teacher case in front of me that said it reasonable official should have known that external speech made as a citizen by a university art gallery director was protected speech and so though that case rely on supreme court held that it that you know it public employee is speaking out on a matter of public concern or not just your own job then they cannot be retaliated against under their salaries doctor whether be it his pleadings averred that he had to give engle review reports to the dea submit to the office of the dean telling him what he was doing what type of publications he was altering including his publications dr weatherby was removed from teaching the m b a course that was an additional course the dop that he had that paid him additional money he lost twenty percent of his pay because he was stripped from teaching that class courses that graduate students themselves teach each other that makes the job market less prestigious and less interesting than the old one and so i get that is never something that where with all of our case law that we don't get in the middle of the a hole that if you have such drastic changes and that job conditions will be actual but you don't have to go there judge means all you have to do is rely upon other well established holdings in this court to say that if you to do more research or whatever the grants is summer support for his salary and so he is able to use that money from the best buy grants as a summer supplement for his salary we pledge that we brief that texas tech seem to try to disagree with that but they can't make that argument this state the court has to accept dark whether he's pleadings is true and so that cost him money when that best five grant was yanked by dean there and then in terms of the in terms of the share professorship that makes this case distinguishable from the older case the older cases distinguishable because of that case and down professorships were not truly renewed at the request this case based on its merits or lack thereof but it just struck me as i mean six years ago i was on a case involving a different i mean texas tech defendant and whether aware of that but it is still a valid roughly the same thing whether b is still suing people from texas tech over roughly the same thing speech about tenure you know it's i know the facts are different and i know that this is the nd appeal that's not all he said judge changed he also said that he was taking action against weather because it was quote to go into the media especially and attacking that college and again it's a fact question here doctor when he was not attacking the college when he was going to the media he was talking about tenure he also used this excuse that dr whether he wasn't sufficiently supporting the university which is extraordinary because  so the record is clear are multiple instances where the male used protection will excuses to justify his retaliation again it was my point out that this court or as a class the members of the community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds will add to the operations of the school should be spent accordingly it is essential that they be able to speak freely on such questions without fear do that again i've never judged as opinion from back in two thousand and four he said well in the marcos vs city of atlanta texas case quote in this case we have a public employee speaking out about allege speech on a matter of public concern that's because that is not the test the test is whether male violated whether b s statutory constitutional rights now whether whether b s constitutional right to be free f counsel says here at argument that do you know how to approve various things that may be true but it's not in the pleadings and even if we accept it that's true that's there's nothing specific about th in a decrease in compensation but in any event even if we view credit that there's no clearly established laws showing the by early and you're a spy is argument that you don't need a case a sort of case on point like you do in excess of hor contexts in order to rebut qualified immunity that's not correct your honor there does need to be a no certainly i will clarify we are not arguing that there has to be a it's got to be beyond debate and we don't have that here for all the various reasons we've discussed even if we credit that nail would have known about that haiti greece there's no clearly established law showing whether decreases professor needs to follow or a teacher of any sort needs to follow the decrease in cases rather than the teaching assignments cases but your response to the or if it was in his personal capacity the court ultimately concluded that based on the allegations then that they then had to accept it was in his personal capacity and he was writing a letter to a state representative so that tenure as an institution and whether his personal experiences it was a letter saying i'm not doing your art show because i don't want to be associated with you to a state representative so certainly that case stands for the general that makes sense because the district court it court there have ruled that whether the speech was not protected and dismissed the case on that ground the district had reached the nd question and the court didn't either but that the