ruling on the assertion of qualified immunity back in that qualified immunity should have been granted on the th amendment sexual harassment claim because the time barred discrete action not have been considered and the remaining alleged conduct does not meet the severe or pervasive standard rd that qualified immunity should have been granted on the st amendment to the asian claim because the denial was based on a marital interference claim that the plaintiff never a matter of only personal concern and because no adverse action was alleged and finally qualified immunity should have been granted on the th amendment disparate treatment claim because the fact alleged by the plaintiff failed s a later time and the court noted that that was improper bob that all she had done was allowed a narrow reading pleading on the gender discrimination claim if she conclusively determined that there was no entitlement to qualified immunity in the july th order what authority gave you the ability to forgo your appeal at that time and wait until the later october order your honor if i may clarify the july th order with only a partial get this then qualified immunity as a whole because it only denied some but not all would seem to favor your client that entitling you to the early appeal of these denials so you wouldn't have to wait you know another six months i don't know of any other party that says only for what paragraphs correct i believe something like that your honor there were a few new allegation that were added and then we move to dismiss the query thing qualified immunity and regard those issues in addition to reassert and yet regarding the others for purposes of preserving kill rate the problem with how we filed an earlier appeal of the july rd quarter it would have resulted in piecemeal appeal of on the qualified immunity issue because we contemplating that they the court might have to revisit those issues and said the decision was held not to be a final ruling on the subject of drought and the court that the vic legal that accepting jurisdiction of that point would not serve the goal of avoiding piecemeal appeal and would only lead to redundancy delay and waste of judicial resources that the final decision rule with meant to prevent right well that's right when it and that it legal that you agreed with me earlier that the court had argument is that have you peel back the order could have resulted in significant delay in the case which at this point has been pending for for almost three year in terms of pursuing an immediate appeal of three of the four qualified immunity issues and then had the district court stayed the case at that point as out of the district court did when this appeal were filed by the time that this court had resolved the qualified immunity question on three of the four appeal and it would then be remanded to the district court and we would go through the whole process of moving to dismiss the amended complaint reasserting qualified immunity on that clay in the that being quite significant and that and moving the case forward but isn't that the whole point of qualified immunity that you're entitled to have the case stayed while the court determines whether you can get out on the street crying whether you have an appeal of that immediately so you say this is wrong let it out now please court of appeal do something about this i mean that's the whole reason why qualified immunity claims once they're determined they're supposed to be appealed right away and the whole case can put on hold you're leaving your client of all the further process i agree your honor that qualified immunity is to be determined at the earliest stage of the case in order to promote the policies that underlie the doctrine however breaking this issue up into a piecemeal appeal whether the defendant with entitled to a qualified immunity determination at the pleading save preventing any discovery or further litigation of the claim would have been delayed and would have are purely legal conclusion and other than a single factuality and regarding a trivial incident that occurred in two thousand and ten in which he judged her allegedly ran into the two of them at a low store and that i hope you're there are no facts to support that or to create a plausible claim in that regard on the entire is it your contention that the court misconstrued that and really it was a claim to not have to associate should we good you point out that's not what she pleaded she heard her argument as i read the record is good door was forcing her to continue to associate with him which is a separate issue than to district court misinterpreted the argument just you know made and made him on this mistake there contend with protected related to her denial of overtime duty and her alleged right now require that related to who was receiving overtime and she then told her supervisor that she would be challenging that   there was no there are no facts plaid at the time that the overtime was denied and twenty six dollars penal that it had anything to do with the alleged suspect sexual relationship but rd amended complaint is explicit in pleading that that relationship had ended in two thousand and nine and that there were no further alleged sexual contact between the plaintiff and my client and  claim is that even if there is a finding of a matter of public concern it was retaliates and was a performance improvement plan which consisted of mere criticism there is no that that there could have been an appeal from the july th order and in that motion to dismiss judge starr did not address the amendments per se i  before the district court with all of the allegations plus what was supplemented in that rd amend the point that you were given the opportunity dismissal without prejudice so you had this was compliant back in front of district court as a matter of practicality and i'm using the word practicality because that's the word that has been used most frequently when there's been a discussion of the collateral order doctrine and the wait or to bring these cases at the most appropriate time for the district court and wasn't the most appropriate time here to forgo the perhaps of the right they had to appeal the july order and faces in that situation what i what i would have done practically is solid motion with the district court saying we're not certain about this july th order there's a motion to dismiss pending stay the effect of the july they didn't challenge the men but in the motion to dismiss the rd amended complaint we we changed four paragraphs in the nd amended complaint we added some s filed a motion to dismiss addressing only those four paragraphs and either ask for an extension to file the appeal and the district court or to come to the court of appeals if they lawyer i know that well maybe one set of people are going to interpret it one way and another set of people are going to talk with another i'm going to preserve the the appeal time from that order most definitely because i don't want to lose that opportunity to follow the people then from practical point of view they had plenty of time to stay after we filed the motion after we saw the rd amended complaint and twenty three because you said you keep referencing the thirty day appeal period that's thirty day appeal period is triggered by a final order correct correct and you're not are you argue that when a district court enters in order granting let's not let's not see i think the confusion here between you and me is that in the abstract your statement is you know i would agree with you and in the final orders and as i understand your position this year old you're saying that they could have taken such an interlocutory appeal but they just decided not to and that we that we should consider that to be a waiver on those three claims it's my understanding that the trial judge misconstrued what you were saying because you you pleaded that door violated your client's association rights by imposing your seeking to intimate relationship on her that's what you pleaded right that's correct but that's not really the way the trial judge construed it the court the court sort of pivoted to this different issue of interfering with their marriage if that's true shouldn't we should we vacate that issue and just ask the district court to properly address the claim that you actually did make i would agree with that ye establish it has the existence of this constitutional question that you're alleging here bene stablished beyond debate that intimate associations are protected by the st amendment and and and and the public official forging attempting to force an intimate that it's a gaspar's case out of the six service yeah ok but i mean is that enough there's one case out of the six circuit even though it's close by different in detail i guess that's what i would say would further grant that leave to amend the complaint the court there found that because the denial qualified immunity and that order contemplated the filing of another such motion after the amended complaint was filed here was a narrow narrow ability to clean with respect to one claim but i don't think peterson's your best bar your honor it regards to my opponent argument that we did not address the new allegation that were that were planted in the rd amended complaint that's incorrect according to the record and paragraph seven of our motion to dismiss the rd amended complaint that physically assert qualified immunity regarding the equal protection claim which included the disparate treatment claim and i'm sorry with that i question well on the court have that that was improperly great you or your renewed and you know the argument the court said were challenge that be amended allegation that related to the disparate treatment claim were we argued that they were still insufficient to meet the pleading foundered and therefore would that be and then they went on to say that  that they also did not novelis a clearly established violation of the law but we did actually address those in response to the rd amended complaint good well done especially under trying circumstances will pick the matter under advisement