claim for race discrimination more than adequately satisfies rule eight a liberal pleading requirements for a race climb dr warburton was a professor in african american fessor at john j college of criminal justice in the economics department his allegations are that he was for a period of time harassed by the by the two individuals the chairman's of the department who were who were who were the alleged discriminators here his allegations are that when he came up for tenure he was actually granted tenure by the the principal committee that was responsible for reviewing his scholarship and academic record credentials boded tenure did tenure voted tenure and yes first i apologize hearing that thank you for the correction he was not granted when he was voted tenure and then when it came when that decision was reviewed by who he contends were the alleged discriminators here that decision was reversed that is what is alleged and not what claims of discrimination did he make begins to these two people and  were required to do well the first year of there were internal race complains he made but that's not i think what you're you're asking me is what in the complaint you know it's out of your race discrimination to play well the the answer to that your honor is that what he alleges is that ultimately the scholarship in academic standards that he was held to on the reversal decision because remember as you rightly point out he was voted for tenure by the committee that he does he say anything specific about that yes sure and he says that his to the white professors who or his complera tours those his colleagues his white colleagues were held to a different and less stringent standard for for judging academic and scholarship potential for tenure that he was that strikes me as a fairly conclusory allegation is there anything more specific in the complaint that you can point to to help the pla state a standard that what exactly well i would i would say two things are out of one at the pleading stage that that to say to set out to set forth in a pleading exactly what what standard was met or not satisfied rather than say as many cases have said that there are white comparatives that were held to a different standard and he clearly alleges that puts them on notice that these were the academic standards that they were held to and i was held to a different standard you name it compared to her we name by we didn't then if i buy a person by name your honor but there is nothing in the pleading appointments are required to say professor you know john smith was held to a different standard that mr little yellow was held to a different standard you have to say something about  about the standard that is was it a matter of quantity of writing was it a matter of quality of of writing of who was given was made to look to these feelings was it a matter of teaching reported is there i don't think you always have to name a specific comparative right this stage i think that would be actually probably hear too much but but you do have to today not some time ago but i think today you have to say something which which focuses it don't you but here's the thing your honor he did meet those standards because the committee in the department votes for ten years and then at a different level where it's compared with other departments in other things that doesn't that doesn't that doesn't say anything about race well that fact your honor may not say that he wins a trial or that fact may not say that he wins a summary judgment decision but we are now the more we go back and forth on this the we are wondering down what i supposed to be a liberal notice pleading requirement and so to say that he was voted for ten years for the people that knew his standards most and then those individuals who identified as harassing and those individuals who iden is in the context of very good performance reviews where there were no issues at all in the context of something mysteriously that he alleges disappearing from from his personnel file which he a den of for us as one of the principal documents that you would look to to make it a decision with no plausible explanation provided by the discriminators or anyone else that at at at john jay college of justice or stronger arguments in support of your position than the ones you're making  a number of your allegation of the allegations in the complaint are so conclusory that they they simply don't they simply are an assertion with nothing backs them up and and if we just strike them and deceive you are here now you are trying to defend those concludes those conclusory allegations saying that damn that where he says are white teachers were held to a different standard you don't say anything you say he suffered harassment there's no details is no just description of any harassment nothing is stated that that that that suggests that that there in fact was harassment apart from his assertion that this conclusion but  not withstanding mcdonnell douglas was pretty precise about what minimal things needed to be pleaded and i wasn't talking about pleading it was talking about satisfactory proof in the absence of an employer's statement of what was the reason and mcdonnell douglas said i'm sorry going back to where i was if if if if certain facts would would satisfy i would would result in a verdict in a judgment in plaintiff's favor in the absence of an employer's statement it surely sufficient to plead the facts that would result that would support judgment in the absence of an employer's statement which you always have you always have that absence when your pleading mcdonnell douglas said that it isn't enough to show that you are in a protected class you were qualified and you didn't get what you what you what you wanted it went on to say in mcdonnell douglas you need to show that somebody was not in that protected class got it but that simply that has since been in been been disregarded  d burn time reemphasizes the minimal nature of what needs to be pleaded at this at this initial stage of course it all changes as soon as the as the employer  states a reason for the action but i don't think that you know while it has required facts that give plausible to support to whatever needs to be pleaded if all that needs to be pleaded is that you are qualified and you applied and you didn't get what you wanted and that is still satisfied i think littlejohn i think our opinion and littlejohn made it clear that this is still what what stands a little blue john i mean that ball apply his but it doesn't change what it is that you need to plead to satisfy the minimal standard you don't need to to have a convincing case of actual discrimination you if this is an arbiter one thing i must say i think it was extraordinarily stupid of the supreme court to do that because they didn't need to do it and it's caused complications in the federal court endless endless misunderstanding and complications which are persisting today but i think that mcdonnell douglas is still go to law and needs that you need to plead facts that make possible all the things that you need to allege that mcdon douglas specified and and while i think a lot of your pleading should be disregarded because it's conclusory and there's nothing to support it or substantiate it the parts that remain are that he was a that he was a professor he wanted to be promoted he applied he was qualified you show that he was qualified by adequately by showing that he was voted tenured by the relevant committee and i'm and that doesn't as far as the pleading is concerned in my view i'd be interested to hear what your adversary has to say but i don't think you can defend the parts of your complaint that are completely conclusory but i don't think you need them under mcdonnell douglas perhaps  saving that is enough and explained it is premature to sit it but explained it in fisher v vassar may say you know our invent they saying that we really want to get a very facia case so that one can get a kind of discovery which often gives the added information that is being given but but but mcdonnell douglas made very clear what those facts are that need to be plausibly supported and little giong we don't have the power in our circuit to reverse supreme court authority it paul said what you need to plead you need to show facts that make it that plausibly supported now what is it you need to plead in a in a in a discrimination case you need to plead called the prime official case at the pleading stage and continuing throughout the stage until the employer comes forth and says our reasons were this that then ceases to be a prime officially cases soon as and allow a completely to be enough if didn't go to what it was that you'd have been done supreme court did that peculiarly given that leader of a came back and changed their mind in a ball is do what was needed and went beyond are our statement is so getting into bad whole business is i think to decide the real issue and the issue which i'd wish would be addressed is under little john has very been a change in what was necessary somehow to plead under mcdonnell douglas that is in our circuit for better or for worse every deviated from what it was on and little john sad the happy hour played facts station to establish a minimal inference of discrimination and that is not done here because there are no facts as to the competitors are all little john self was said it is no longer the case under mcdonnell douglas that to plead in category a which is the suspect category and discriminated against category asserts that mcdonnell douglas is the law that governs what it is that needs to be pleaded it's been characterized by the supreme court as something minimal bred dein repeated minimal but mcdon require that you know that you get into that kind of detail when doing it like this it's very clear what it is that's necessary and we have a lot that here although we have a lot of garbage that we should properly disregard we've also got colonel a very very minimal colonel of the supreme court said in all of its infinite wisdom that that's enough mcdonnell douglas was a case that deals with the standard it was not it a pleading case what often is a problem invented here the fact that the faculty committee voted him is certainly enough to get a smile that now there's nothing else there is nothing else as qualified as persons who got tenure but he does not plead he doesn't have to say he's as qualified under under mcdonnell douglas i gree with you that that man isn't he doesn't say that persuasively but he does dumb he is qualified where his complaint was why doesn't why did the fact that the that the that the relevant faculty committee voted him tenure minimally supported plausibl support that he's qualified for what in addition to the fact that he's been doing it he's been teaching for a long time nobody's ever pointed out any problems with it he's never had disciplinary problems as his this is nothing implausible about his being qualified for the position that he's held and he wants to now as he alleges tenure was not based on his scholarship and he implicitly alleged incorporated it into his complaint at the present slighter that it gave the reasons why he was denied tenure namely problems of scholarship in a collegiality and i'm so that letter has to be taken into account so the fact that one committee out of many  was the reason that it he was told and that when the letter said i had not sang it wasn't because of because i'm black i but really it was because of my terrible scholarship he's saying it was because i'm black one understands why district judges might busy is beyond want to get rid of these cases very early under twelve be cynics on the other hand if you have this a peculiar statement well there might be a reason for it into a supreme court with that's all that's needed then isn't that what we're about to say is all that's needed is the reason you know i was interested in  discriminated against because he's black confused because littlejohn says that absent direct evidence of discrimination what was possibly supported by facts which the complaint is that plaintiff is a member of a protected class was qualified recommendation that was then reversed his appointment or well i mean i first say that as as as you want to point it out is that the inference the motivation that the inference of racial motivation can be taken from him  meeting satisfying the elements of the mcdonnell douglas test ultimately in addition then to the for the well beyond beyond i think that that you could take the motivation from that test i would argue your honor that you know ultimately if he's approved for ted after this lengthy career where there are no problems and no discipline and he's all well and good and everything is great and then he's a he's a proof of tenure by this committee that looks at all of this stuff and that ultimately is reverse on reasons that he claims he contends and alleges are false if you were if you prove that if i took depositions of these people if i demonstrated that this was clearly false explanations for things all of that would support  him not getting out of the committee's vote and the ministry well i think that the committee's vote as as as this panel has pointed out is evidence of his qualifications so whether there would be sufficiently played played allegations that he was qualified for the position without initial vote use me i think we have to be willing for your time with him to say that motivation is sufficiently pleaded when there is no rule then he is in category x he's black and he's qualified i think that we have to say that is that the is that the categories that can be pleaded are are absolutely infinite i mean it you know if you have a russian grandmother you're eligible to plead that i was discriminated against because a russian grandmother  another category is somebody who has a russian grandmother and a rumanian grandfather that's a different category and under certain state circumstances i suppose that that that may be the fact that himself is black he's not one of the absolutely infinite numbers of categories that can be that can qualify under mcdonnell douglas and  coup or classification i think it's a good we do not have the power to reverse mcdonnell douglas and i don't think anything we've said in littlejohn or any other