before the where the employee with enough facts to support for the charges against him so that the employee can respond to the charge there are always fact issues in these cases that you would be proved to be totally false correct and here's why because the plaintiff also had the opportunity who felt that there was such such a degree of bias he had an arbitration process through the union he also had the local agency law that would have provided him with a pool i would enter here in both i said that's a state court claim the claim here is only that he was denied a property interest under the federal constitution without prejudice to his right to pursue state court claims concerning his rights under state court we're not we wouldn't i wouldn't waive any any differences that i have but certainly that would have been his option here if you look at one did the plaintiff appear number two did he have other options if he felt that that was a sham and in those cases he did it and he had the same opportunity here and the other thing is here mr mr the hearing process that you're about to do that you started to describe to us as a matter of law would due process be satisfied if they knew this had allegations that were wholly flaw false and the person the entity that served notice on the employee identifies the allegations sets forth the evidence to support those allegations even if those are wholly made up so long as the person has a chance to challenge his allegations at a subsequent proceed notice itself this complies with due process i believe is there is i could do it w versus fowler where the employer is actually going to buy the employer with the employees lied to yes john i believe i believe we have the same situation there were an employee has every right to challenge those laws and produce evidence contrary to their lives i would talk about jennings because jennings involved a situation where ron to the description of the evidence there was a i'm misrepresenting epilate misrepresentation saying no evidence of a tape existed when in fact one existed and therefore if that was the problem with that notice and that was so because it was fawcett white why sit in jennings inform us and in this case that's not the that's not the case here because although mind may disagree record establishes that that the notice was appropriate that that's the difference i believe a plaintiff is alleging bias here is not alleging outright lies for instance some of these issues actually occurred you look at the entire record his deposition the maybe to extent of it and what what will be for the been upon initially the penalty for these things was going to be a reduction in that it wasn't until he arrested mr peterson three days later when everything went beyond sometimes they just aren't if if the notice that was provided to mr c here was outside the scope of the proceedings that is it was something that was entirely different so that it really didn't provide any indication or any reason for going ahead with this terminations i assume your answer would be biased discriminatory bias based on race or ethnicity what if the reason for the notice was was issued based upon that kind of improper bias does that change whether or not the the notice is sufficient it does not not under the previous sham because chief cacio had never had a negative performance exam performance examination or report until after he charged miss peterson with the crime of committing a mass of fog within the police department now we believe it was totally retaliatory because of that but he said that the purpose of the hearing not to notice the notice or service one purpose the hearing serves the purpose according to a lot of mail to determine if there's a reasonable ground to believe the charge against simply arch and support the proposed actual i believe an album this is to keep i think they made a distinction that even if the notice even if there is no it's the fact that the charges have absolutely zero merit in that they came without any evidence whatsoever were arguing that there was no evidence whatsoever to back up these charges over such so in this case they gave you the evidence that they were they were relying upon you claim it was a foot but according to tucker and the other case is that they don't have to prove the truth of these allegations this is their allegation and you never showed up you one what's the nd one was but the nd one came after there was a dispute as to whether or not there even was going to be a lot of me or a lot of alarm or a hearing if i could just for the benefit of the record with respect to correct you're saying it gives no notice when it describes the events that issued the dates and the witnesses about that they talk about the various allegations in this the camera of the incident would sniff the payroll and didn't really tell me what i was there for and there's a factual dispute about what was actually conveyed about the allegations and even the evidence here there's not a dispute about what it what your claim was provided he had a piece of people with episodes only that if if there is evidence that the entire process including the notice even if it does list some sort of evidence if it is a sham which this  which if true or not are definitely a meritorious you can't say the allegations and they are a sham i'm not sure i have a credibility hearing to prove one way or the other but the allegations are there i believe that his attorney sensing that this was a sham went to the st hearing and made that clear i think he was also worried about protecting whatever his client chief cacio might say of this and i just think it was so overwhelming that this was in fact a sham and that this entire thing was based on retaliation against the defendant as well as the fact that there is much evidence about race and racial nature of this specifically in this peterson who was well known and we have met multiple witnesses that she often referred to schieffer cacio as the spec who replaced the nigger well i bet that's that's  property interest in the job do you still have a right to pursue in this case your allegation that you were improperly fired or do you have to file separately in state court claiming that you civil service or other rights under state law have been violated well i believe that if i believe that you are the court i mean the federal court can transfer this case then don't know when dr and i transfer and let us assume the worse for you would be if you lose this case we without prejudice to any rights you may have under state low this is not a stable proceeding i would think you would have to do that because if you if you if you determine that if you make a decision with prejudice but i think we'd be arguing the same things i can't say i haven't done the research but i would i would think that if if the issue is whether the latter mill hearing had proper notice i don't see how there would be any distinction that i would be able to make in state in a state claim that would would alter the facts such that it would work with state law i mean your theory of the case it so be the same if they still didn't give you proper notice you korea invoke your civil rights protections your civil servant protections i think it's what judge counts i think that would be an issue i can't say for certain but i think would be an issue if i may only have four minutes left again  the other problem here is i do believe that all of these issues here are again point two issues of material fact and i don't think that the issues of whether or not this lot was proper not is an issue for the trier of fact but there is the law if the latter mill law tells us that a proper notice needs to identify the allegations then to find the evidence that would be a due sufficient so that the the employee would know what facts it need to hear she needed to marshal to respond to those allegations if that's all lot of known liars he can make that decision based upon this record i don't think that that is all of america choir's i also think that to it than the notice and have to be corrected a model that's true but i think they also looked at the notice and i think that what they really said is if there is the it's obvious that this thing is a sham from the beginning that the does or the chief of costume doesn't have to pursue this now he did have his attorney go to represent him and his rep and his attorney told him that you know this thing it just reeks of a sham and i think that if i could just go back to obvious as he  for nd was it also part of the problem though if you don't have a chance to test the allegations and evidence separate in that notice that's where the deprivation for that particular employee curtsey just get a chance to test it that's the problem is different than the problem you have here because here is that count is pointed out there was an opportunity to test and never and never exercised well it's our contention that that this notice was improper from the beginning it actual notice letter or whether it was forged later and that was that it was not presented to of chief of cacio on the date that it says it did  and that there's so many issues of bias here that have been brought out in discovery that predated all of this all of this fall versus city of scranton i think also is as we talked about that post the events it wouldn't operate as clearly established now it's i think that it's not it's not presidential and it talks about well i believe it touches on both  that they talk about a meaningful hearing sufficient explanation of employers evidence to permit a meaningful response they also talk about well they say that in effect they're saying there's no say there's no because i think he was fearful he's going to be ambushed and he was going to be ambushed and that the hearing was going to be an absolute he did send letters so why he didn't want to attend and considering the fact also that he had arrested council person peterson i believe at that point he believed that it was that he was not going to get a fair hearing and it was not in his interest to go entire the accusations are based on on such a sham and that if it is clear that the the hearing is not going to have any credibility i don't believe that the plaintiff in this matter the paoli here doesn't have to pursue it doesn't it doesn't have to attend that hearing in order to pursue his due are you charging at the same time that the notice did not apprise your client what the problem was why he was being  so i'm saying that there are issues as to actually when he did get this notice there were if there issues about the credibility of that notice because of the date issues and that also the basis of that of the evidence of of the so called evidence was  appeared according to plaintiff in his deposition testimony because he was told by his attorney at the time the fop attorney that you're suspended you don't need to be there and that was that there was no further explanation in this record as to why i did and would and whether or not they should influence the issues here i don't believe i don't believe they do i believe album versus support issue here because there and i think you know the court basically held that the utility did not