court's standards under littlejohn and bega number one the timing of the terminations shortly after both plaintiffs sought and received family medical leave they were terminated and for a motto that was  a three week period and for produce it was five or six weeks and under littlejohn and under vega that was enough to state a cause of action for retaliation under the federal civil rights laws in addition to that there is evidence set forth and i'm just to clarify they were the timing was three weeks were five or six weeks well on what was a model requested family on march thirty one twenty fifteen and he was fired april twenty one twenty fifteen in between that time period he receives family medical leave and i thought the request wasn't granted until april seventeenth correct but that was in between the time he requested until he was fired the request was granted along the way and same with p d f they were granted the same that requested but it was close enough under the cases to set out on a page a case in addition to that we have some hostility by management toward the plain leave in the past that doesn't mean that they can't be fired for that in the future at some point you can plausibly assert that management is fed up with these requests because it causes administrative problems when you're juggling schedules value argument that level of detail is not in the complaint we don't know who the other carpenter mechanics were other than setting forth in the complaint that there were in fact less senior car mechanics who are retained when the plaintiffs were terminated the defendants arguing why isn't that just conclusory assertion that i mean if you're saying you don't know who they were how do you know that they were that they just did even well it's not a summary judgment motion and we know they existed because a complaint says that there were comparables who w terminated as you may know i didn't write the complaint if i were to write a complaint i would have been names there i'm not sure omitting the names makes that allegation conclusory the defendant primarily argues that this complaint is not stated claim because there was a reduction in force i don't think reduction in force is an argument you can make on a rule twelve motion unless the complaint itself concedes that there was a good faith reduction in force reduction in force we don't concede that there are documents attached to defend its motion that lay out some of the terms of the red document force that's not properly before the court on a rule twelve motion because they're not entitled to the allegations in the complaint we make the same arguments for the plainest with use back to the disability discrimination claim under the city law each planet has a disability they were terminated while they were out on leave the first in an interest in news they got there's no dispute about what the what the standards are there's no question at all that a court cannot dismiss a complaint because disbelieves factual allegations that's not w exercise their pumping rights which certainly implies that they believe they had camping rights and the ability to junior employees the  and they were there was a supervisor that had made comments in the past when the way about their economic lives and that's sufficient to show but the complaint itself and here's why a judge is not a potted plant your own or judge chin  was not just a letter to these two individuals it was a warning letter the court can actually take additional is the fact that one letter is go out when five hundred or new york two hundred fifty employees are terminated at the same time or you know fifty or more employees and see that this letter was not a letter sent to these two individuals it was a letter sent to hundreds of people or to many people and so when you look at the timing your honor the case law the second sort of case on this says that the timing isn't in a vacuum it's in context and that's the judge's role in reviewing this i'm not saying was it possible sure it is possible that all the times that they asked for half a million leave and all the times they screamed at them and all the times that they know they granted the  and that they knew about the disability it's possible all those times nothing ever happened to them they've never been subpoenaed never been disciplined it's never been fired they've never been censured this time it's possible that coincidentally when there was a one firing of twenty one people as part of a transition of the entire medical school to another entity this time they were picked up is that that's the key difference and this is where plausibility comes to play this does not move the ball beyond possibility and i give you if i may your honor another example that they argue which is they take they say that there's inconsistent reasons given they are you know they argue was it consistent that and inconsistent reasons each of those cases are dealing with real inconsistent reasons at the beginning the employer said there was no performance issue that the three reasons are arguably consistent are they not are complete and consistent i mean should we be resolving whether they are consistent there are really related i mean i think there are there are clearly related but are they consistent are the inconsistent isn't that engaging in fact finding by resolving that question now i think that's an analysis of the difference between possibility implausible it's possible yes it's possible that these are inconsistent but you know if i said to my son you know you can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich today because i've just been too busy at work and i have had a chance to go to the store and so we don't have any peanut butter and jelly and he were turned around to me and say ha isn't consistent first you say it's because you're too busy and then you say it's because you never got a chance to go to the store and now you're saying we just don't have that's what's happening here we're trying to move and the point of all this point is that what's happening is the plaintiffs the plaintiff in his complaint is trying to tell the judge look here but don't look here and don't look here and don't look here and don't look here even though all those facts are played in the complaint when they got there how long they've been even asking getting a family's the fact that there are other people the worn actor mation not individual terminations alex any of the cases of bega littlejohn or other things where let us remember the standards set forth in littlejohn about what it takes to survive lewis well it is a plaintiff friendly standard at this point minimal support for the diminished obligations under  and we have that here i mean this argument today sounds like a summary judgment argument you know the plaintiff says this but what about all of this while all of this is not really conceded in the complaint there are arguments that have to await discovery and you know particularly with respect to the reduction in force because complaint doesn't provide anything that compels a finding as a matter of law that they part of the argument that the complaint incorporates the warning letter by her hands the war letter is not addressed to the plaintiffs in the complaint it's a form letter and the amended complaint doesn't incorporate the war letter but even if there's  a letter we have we still have timing we still have disability related hostility from management we still have disparate treatment we still have the bumping rights which they would deny it so even if there's a war letter there's still a claim for retaliation even if th one letter we probably survive summary judgment based on everything we've been talking about today now the but for motivating factor distinction probably doesn't it work well on the rule twelve i think this court and kwan said it doesn't really work well in a summary judgment motion and so how can it really work how can we really apply it on the rules well that's such a fine distinction between the two for these reasons this court should reverse on both claims to family medical leave and the city law