it's been a long held provision of the law of our circuit and our supreme court that section forty two u s c one nine hundred eighty one protects not only against race discrimination but also against discrimination based on ancestry were ethnic characteristics and that's nearly an exact quote the exact quote is contained in my brief from st francis college first as alec as in the district court the words national origin were correctly used to describe mr not a sons to describe mr not a son but what is important in the complaint is that the invocation of the statute prohibiting race ancestry and and ethnic discrimination was the primary  putting aside the warning that substantively alleged race discrimination absolutely but what is the rice the alleged racism applying to mr not a son identifies himself  hundred one is broader than that and that's been the subject of a very recent case this year alone in our circuit and that's the case which i also say a village of freeport versus borough of which discusses the concept of hispanics city and persons of hispanic origin and i describe a number of other cases where persons who come from certain places and their ethnicity and heritage are so in fact barela says things like fizzy oddny which are traditionally the scientific indicators of race don't need to apply what is more important and what in fact the law says back to one nine hundred eighty seven is the discrimination the discrimination in the case is that he was told by a person of another race and this is another point going to whether this is in one thousand nine hundred one case he compares himself to persons and i'm just going to quote from the complaint white persons persons of indian origin and the comments when you're arguing it's a hostile environment case it's a one nine hundred eighty one discrimination case under race ethnicity and watching my heritage want to disarm of discrimination he was told among other things that he was a fake indian that he wasn't true indian comments beyond the comments is there anything for his ethnic heritage he was said he didn't need true indian food he didn't know how to pronounce indian names he was a fake indian that was repeated a couple of times other persons of other races and these are supervisory individuals  was alleged to have committed were alleged to have committed an assault on on him wave their finger in his face and generally done things like not accommodate his reasonable requests for that was one of his heritage and ethnicity he compares himself against people of other races heritage's and ethnicities we have law from one nine hundred eighty seven and this year in two thousand and sixteen in our circuit that says that heritage and ethnicity is covered under one nine hundred eighty one and there are a number of examples within the complaint that i detailed in my brief in the second section where he talks about his heritage he and his ethnicity he uses the word national origin frequently frequently he is from there that is a fact but what the judge missed was that i'll be in only one place that it's a race yet throughout the complaint it referred to the heritage and ethnicity  policies for employment at the hospital that would it be at singapore in nationals there's no hospital in the case i take no now there were some in our full bearers of drafting by the council who that that was an error by the court and we've argued that the court should have given it there was a request there is no request made there was not a request made there was there was a challenge and a request for reconsideration the court invited it some argument on this there was basic argument a deuced by the by plaintiff's counsel at that level but this is the kind of thing that screams look you say race you say ethnicity you say heritage these are within one nine hundred eighty one there may be weaknesses in the complaint as both judge chin and your honor pointed out judge louis that maybe there are these things that are not in the complaint that should be this screams thank you it seems that the parties are all in agreement your honour's that forty two u s c section one thousand eighty one does not cover claims of national origin this complaint could not be clearer that it asserts a claim of national origin discrimination and the only we don't we don't have to rely on the four times that the complaint mentions national origin nor the eight times that the complaint uses the phrase singapore national and describing what the discrimination was we can look actually to and maybe most relevantly to the few paragraphs of the complaint that actually describe the facts of the alleged discrimination and those are paragraphs thirty four and thirty five which counsel referred to a moment ago in which one of his supervisors described him allegedly described the plaintiff as a fake indian that he didn't know how to pronounce indian names and didn't like indian food and paragraph thirty five actually says specifically that he was not able to pronounce indian names allegedly because he was from singapore that's the allegation so that the only factual element that we have as opposed to boilerplate or generic descriptions of the claim is that his supervisor okamura criticised him because he was from singapore that's his direct national origin claim as one can imagine and if if that's if that qualifies under section one thousand nine hundred one it's difficult to imagine what a plant would have to allege to please himself out of court with a national origin claim as case after case has so that he did the discussion about national origin throughout the complaint is absolutely conclusive with respect to retaliate there are cases where national origin is alleged but in essence it's a proxy that's right your honor i hear because they don't apply here because there is no allegation that what was actually going on was criticism of the plaintiff on the basis of race or ethnic origin and in fact irish were haitian that's the issue your honor is that and i'm speculating to some degree here but it appears to have been a strategic decision that because the supervisors were asian and mr not a son was asian he had to find something else to rely on and that's why he constantly says singapore singapore singapore and there's no case that holds that being singaporean is is an ethnicity or race nor could there be no more is there any any basis to claim that when mr okamura says you're not really an indian that that's somehow a racial or ethnic claim because again the comment is you're not from india you are from singapore it's as clear a national origin claim as one complete the retaliation claim then similarly fails not only because it's alleged retaliation based on national origin which is still outside ninety one but also because the complaint fails to allege any kind of chronology we don't know when the defendants allegedly became sense protected activity and so then took some negative action against him as judge shin pointed out the alleged adverse action here is very soft and gentle all this alleged is is a denial of mentor ship opportunities development opportunities whatever those mean a miss not a sign was not terminated he was not demoted he was not suspended and one case i'd like to mention to your honor's because it's not in either party's brief on this point is a case called vega versus hempstead union free school district it's eight zero one f third seventy two two thousand and fifteen second circuit case was not cited by the parties in the pleadings but the reason i mention it is because on this retaliation point because the court says there that in order to plead a case of retaliation and we are talking about in the complaint the court says this court said that the complaint must plausibly plead a bu for causation connection and you can read this complaint thoroughly as you like and you cannot find any allegation that pleads that the even these sort of soft generic things  reconfirms that finally as has been noted there's no it was no request to leave for leave to amend the complaint here so there's no reason for the court here to be considering that issue and on that point i would only note again although if it is in the papers that this was mr not a son second bite at the apple he had filed a complaint in the district of connecticut alleging a title seven claim it was dismissed because his former counsel declined to district court was aware of that history when it decided this this issue and that may have all those no indication one way or the other may have influenced the court in whether or not it decided to sue a sponsor and to suggest amendment but in any case mr knot certainly did not request it and then the final issue is about supplemental jurisdiction and whether the court should have decided the state law claims or just reminded them to state court that is of course a discretionary choice that the judge made there's no basis here for any abuse of discretion the judge decided that the the complaint that the state walk lame simply didn't state a claim as a matter of law and most of that goes unchallenged by the pound before this court so for all those reasons that the juror the judgment of the district court should be firm thank you borrow a finding and that is not to get us to where we need to go and does not there is no law that says you cannot be the same race and discriminate against someone additionally there are persons of the white race to quote complaint who were both named as defendants and who are used as complera thor's the judge as counsel has pointed out and knew that this action was in it originally commenced as a race discrimination case it's brought under a statute that  alleges race discrimination in but for perhaps in artful drafting it mentions national origin on a number of occasions but national simply being a national of singapore is an accurate description reading the word racial which exists in the complaint and reading ethnicity and heritage in the complaint are sufficient to add this case flaw under regardless of whether it was well drafted or poorly drafted to fall under one nine hundred eighty one sufficient to give rise to or the root the judge to say we need to clean this complaint up there is something  that you are alleging and we need to to come clean the complaint up especially in light of the fact of previous issues issues with previous council where one case had failed due to the failings of that prior council that was clearly known to the judge as far as what goes in here as i said mr madison compared himself in terms of racial discrimination to white folks to folks of other races national origins and ethnicities the twenty this circuit has been very very almost unanimous in dressing these issues that the proper action should have been to then just miss without prejudice and let state court resolve those claims the judge resolved claims of negligent hiring supervision of an assault claim under connecticut state law and a fair employment practices act under the connecticut for employment act practices act statute i submit that that was error and the judge should be instructed to change that and to a dismissal without prejudice so that the state court can properly address the state claims and bar any further questions i thank you all very much and excuse