r never had a conversation with tran and plaintive doesn't allege that they did a chart independently reached out to the university and based on that conversation based on the e that often rescinded and we also have that the contract was terminated there's a seventeen day gap between these two so what point is x in the court to believe is that the offer was rescinded for retaliatory motives but they still allowed him to work there for seventeen more days and they venn term in his contract for the same retaliatory motives seventeen days later that's just not reasonable or  infer that and for those reasons if you're honest or having questions we respectfully request that you are firm the district court's well reasoned opinion thank you of came in with the september th letter that said he had enough credits she said this is fine your cool language to that effect so they were willing to overlook it so whatever they have as a paper credential young  excepted whatever you had to say about plaintiff's educational background exceptions to the general policy our brief page eighty nine has five examples of people who had comparable discrepancies again summary judgment the similarly situated the question is well their errors were not willful they were they were mistaken and it wasn't intentional how do you distinguish between a willful mistake at a negligent mistake or a good faith mistake on a summary judgment motion especially when plaintiff did everything he could to go back to school to find out what happened he did what young told him to do and he came back with a letter that young wanted him to have so when we hear there's no way to get around the discrepancies there is a way to get around the discrepancies young was willing to overlook the discrepanc page to sixty seven quote she said it was sufficient that you had the requirements but not necessarily a good degree answer yes that's exactly correct we're talking about young here quote if she told me to provide the associates i would have paid the bill and provided the associates the only reason inferring that trend influenced montanus in the interval between the conversation between month as the st and nd conversation between month as in young so what accounts for young changing her mind on is is that something that there's a dispute about whether she actually told mt as in conversation one listen we don't want to go forward with this one month as was still standing up for all that manchester turned against ahmed after his tran and so the discrepancy about young i'm not sure of that matters if she changed her mind she changed her mind is there any indication that tran had some interaction with young before the conversation with month as were month as turns around or were not aware of any conversation with young but there's something very irregular about this process is my point again de minimus standard once plane is subject to the harassment everything falls apart for him and he does what they want and he still doesn't get it other people have similar discrepancies muntasser has this about face that nobody seems to be able to explain although there is an inference to be drawn and young apparently on behalf of h r jury could assume that she is speaking on behalf of the museum about what they're willing to accept if there's a candidate that they want and it's still not good enough so what's going on here and then we know that montana's at the very end when he was fired plaintiff sends an e mail you know what's going on i did everything you want i'm waiting for a decision moment has a c seat on the e mail he comes running out of his office two seconds after plaintiff hits send yelling at the plaintiff what's that about so and then they decide well the plaintiff is a hothead and he can't work here because he has access good morning your honor is may it please the court molly casey from the law from of money mcguire cardona i represent the app ellie herman sanchez your honor this is a case that went to trial that two years ago my client mr sanchez claimed that he was subject to an improper body cavity search in the context of a warrant being executed at his his apartment the defendant in the case although been aki a we go city police issue on appeal the only issue that the appellant has raised on appeal is whether my client's right to be free from that search it was a clearly established right one question yes how can you say that it was a clearly established right in february two thousand reconcile well i do want to address the my argument on a waiver but it was a clearly established right because it was found by the jury to be an unreasonable body cavity search like just a that a body cavity search must be done in a medically responsible way this was done in my client's bedroom with the insertion of a finger into his rectum that wasn't safe it wasn't sanitary so i think that that's the distinguishing point here  that this was not a reasonable body cavity search because it was not conducted in a reasonable way i think at this point it's already gone to the jury and the jury has already decided that issue and that brings me to my threshold argument was that understand it was raised in the answer and then it was never raised again until we were in the courthouse for the trial well somewhat well because of case law that says that it is and it would be logical it would make life much easier for defendants and to some degree for the courts to make a motion for summary judgment that's what's usually done when defendants are asserting qualified immunity but we have case law saying that's not required right well there's also case on from the supreme court that says because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability it's effectively lost if the case goes to trial well they're saying that in the context of saying that it is possible permissible for the defendant to take an appeal immediately but that doesn't mean it's all over now it's an immunity both from going to trial and from having a judgment entered against you and if the he manage to screw it up so that maybe they should have been able to avoid a trial but they didn't they still have a right to avoid a verdict were judgment if they're entitle to qualify them you don't think well i would argue that they are not entitled to qualified immunity because the jury already determined the factual issues that would have had to be determined in making the qualified immunity inquiry those issues have issue of whether or not it was constitution and it is a clearly established right when we see clearly established when the jury returned their verdict well the factual inquiry was undertaken by the jury the judge the trial judge charge that the jury was not going to be given any written into raga tories on that simply the new york court of appeals standard determines this right the judge told the jury it is an unreasonable search if there is not a reasonable individual reasonable suspicion that the individual was hiding something in his rectum that was the instruction right and exit in circumstances right so the jury decided that there was not individual was suspicion and there were not examine circumstances that is with the jury so that's what the jury found but the question is what makes it clearly established law that you know what makes the record correct not only that this is the constitutional standard but that was clearly established constitutional law at the time of the search well if you read the trial transcript it's clear that this search was done in a malicious way by the officer and that's what the jury the jury make  the evidence was your honor at trial that's and the defendant categorically denied doing what my client claimed that he did it the jury found in favor of my client the jury believe my client's version of the events which was that this police officer did this in a malicious way it wasn't to try to find evidence the only thing that the jury needed to find under the judge's instructions was that there was no individual monetized suspicion of something being hidden in the wreckage and there was no exigent circumstances and that all would you need to find in order to return a verdict for the point of correct your honor he did not have to find there's nothing in the jury instructions that said they needed to find that this was done  deliberately malicious ways they're correct judge but that the police officer testified at trial and at his deposition that doing the search in the way that my client claimed that he did was on reasonable was against the law which could they weren't could only be executed for a manual the body cavity the officer subjective understanding of the state of the law is not the issue the issue for qualified immunity is what was the state of the law and the enforcement officers who just make a mistake it's not to protect a lot of force and officers who do something in a malicious way towards an heiress da or an incarcerated person so when the jury decided that the officer in this case did conduct the manual body cavity search the testimony was that that he knew that that was the wrong thing to do so his knowledge is on point here because the qualified immunity inquiry protects people that just didn't know they were doing the wrong thing it doesn't protect people who knew they were doing the wrong thing and went ahead and did it anyway so i think that his knowledge at that point was