below spent a lot of time analyzing this utilizing just new york defamation law but in stigma plus he has a broader notion show the utterance of a statement sufficiently derogatory to injure one interplaying us reputation that is capable of being proved false and that he or she claims for claims is false believe if taken as a whole and that's where we're defamation by implication comes in those statements basically say and with mr paternal name in it that mr paternal was the one responsible for the the bad stuff that went on in the department transportation and it's clearly the intent of the letter and i think the intent is part of what matters it's the intent and this comes out of defamation law of the the language as a whole can reasonably be seen as having a defense attorney purpose and that was what was intended be what was interesting to tell to see about that is the letter itself that was published in the chief newspaper is then responded to basically is responded to by the editor and there's a comment by the editor it's in there in the record below the letter where the editor says commission says we're doing all we can and the editor says well then why have paternal so clearly the if you really were doing all you can you would have fired paternal so her letter had its intended purpose which was to say all this bad stuff was mr paternal and we think that that that fits into the and twelve statements i call into question the plaintiff's good name reputation on and aren't integrity we've also said that statements that denigrate the employees competence as a professional and impugn the employees professional reputation in such a manner as to effectively put well now we're talking about the speech with the speech part of his so after the consent decree is published and i do want to come back to the article seventy question after that after that after this letter is published in the consent decree as published booster paternal goes to his workplace in time his day off he goes to the workplace to talk to some of the employees who are involved and he talks about and they have a conversation about the the consent decree and is it legitimate is it you know is it based on fact is were these guys really did they really believe that they were that they were discriminated against and certainly at min that that's not just a conversation about a personal grievance that's not someone coming in and saying i didn't get a long enough lunch hour or the lunch is here to it's terrible this is someone who is discussing with fellow employees a public consent decree that discusses racial discrimination in the workplace that's protected speech and he was then brought up on charges for having this conversation with his fellow workers pickering part of that by the way  where the judge talks about how the employees file charges is not anywhere found anywhere in the entire record and the impact of those those statements and his conversation is not found anywhere in the entire record and all plaintiff was charged with was having the conversation that's all he was charged with and i want to just get back go back to the article seventy eight question because here i ask you a question about that the oracle seventy  that show the causation for sticking a plus well it's clear in trying to berg's letter where she says we took this action that's that established the connection she says in the letter we took this action against mr no because of what was developed during the investigation which we've now signed a consent decree about mr turner was not told when he was demoted you're being demoted because you did you engage in racially discriminatory actions he was just told you're being reassigned to this particular position and the supplies the link in her letter that's what we would say but one of the problems with the order you lost over sixty thousand dollars in salary as a also has a stigmatizing effect going forward after being blasted in the newspapers as being a racist administrator he's never going to get another job either in d o t or anywhere else making the kind of money he was making administrator being a high level official so that that you know the stigma plus part is not just what happened in the past but it's also what happens going forward and what happened we would submit well we got testimony from this guy and that guy that said he did something wrong they would win the article seventy eight dollars case that's not a setting like the one in c in c go where the the employee had i think what was called us see the thirty one hearing available and the department of education guidelines there was no such hearing available to mr turner so i reserve some time and i'm going to start thinking mr schwartz you reserve three minutes for a bottle i think it's important to look back at exactly what mr paternal allege happened here looking specifically at the facts in the complaint st and i'm turning to paragraphs eighty three thousand of the complaint mr paterno says that he was one of the primary subjects of a federal probe into racial discrimination in paragraphs eleven and twelve he makes clear that the city was named in a federal civil rights lawsuit the city entered just consent into a consent decree in june two thousand and seventeen and certain victims of discrimination were paid compensation and all that happened more than a year after the internal transfer that he never grieved using their rights available to him outlined in this collective bargaining agreement and then now i'm looking at paragraph thirty three mr paterno says that he had discussions with coworkers about the consent decree he denied the city's admissions and he asked other employees for their views and finally paragraph thirty eight mr paterno retired just had planned in me two thousand and eighteen before he was ever subjected to any discipline in connection with his actions at the flatland yards none of that adds up to either of the causes of action that he alleged in his complaint i'm not going to spend too much time on the consent decree issue in the stigma plus claim because mr paternal really doesn't challenge the fact that that is a an absolutely privileged litigation document to the extent that he says  r commissioner adopted statements in that to create only one of those statements is actually about him she says and you're looking at one hundred and twenty of the record in july two thousand and sixteen d o t removed john paternal the main subject of the investigation from his position resigning him to a position without supervisor of responsibility and no role in hiring or promotions that's what he alleges in his complaint to paragraphs two hundred and twenty two thousand six hundred and twenty seven and so all of the rest of what he wants to tie looking backwards to you his demotion all of that is the kind of negative in your window that in maguire versus warren this court made clear is not actionable and again just briefly and mars vs window this court also explained that the definition of defamation that can form a stigma plus claim has to have occurred in conjunction with a negative employment action and in march versus valley stream five months of a separation between those two events was too long and here were thirteen months finally one respect to the the available post deprivation remedy siegel versus city of new york is very clear that article seventy proceeding in state court would have offered an adequate post depravation remedy for an at will employee in his briefs mr paternal just want to distinguish between himself and an at will employee but in this respect it doesn't matter because he doesn't in this specific at specific issue he's not situated in any way that's materially different from the at will employee in siegel because he had no right to a pretty transfer hearing under his collective bargaining agreement and in fact his agreement set forth many other robust protections that the employer siegel didn't enjoy but on this issue he had no entitlement to a pretense for hearing he had up to one hundred and twenty days after that transfer or any change in his salary to commence a grievance he didn't and that and the fact that he chose not to reveal himself either of the c v a provisions or an article seventy eight does not give him a federal cause of  action and then moving to his nd claim in the st memory television there's absolutely no protected speech alleged in this complaint mr and no harm mr paternal doesn't even attempt to say that he was speaking as a member of the public and again looking carefully not at any extrapolations from what he alleged but what he actually alleges that he had discussions he denied city the city's admissions and he asked other employees for their views he wasn't speaking to his union members he wasn't speaking to neighbors he wasn't speaking outside of the work place he was talking about a personal grievance as an employee and that's not protected speech and even if it were he alleges no harm the only thing he says is that his other allegations because he retired before he was ever subjected to any discipline so if the court doesn't have any further questions that we will rest on the arguments are very the question about the fact that he retired about a year after the consent decree was issued i think it was maybe the next year besides that it's not in the record it has no effect that was exactly the reason that he retired is because he was embarrassed he felt he had no future but it's not part of the record and certainly shouldn't be any of that one of the considerations here the letter itself a thousand and sixteen d o t removed john paternal the main subject of the investigation of the investigation from his position reassigning him to a position without supervisory responsibility which is untrue and no role in hiring or promotions so who would she's done is take and this is the the see the u s attorney the city went to pains to call him executive director to people were able to perhaps able to figure it out she decided in this letter to not only label him to give to keep his name but also to call him the main subject of the investigation like this entire problem that was resolved with a major consent decree was john paternalist problem and that's the that's the key sentence to me which is basically saying all of all of this is is it's his fault and then it has its effect it's has its intended purpose because it says the editor wri did involve determination of an at will employee anemone the other case that the district court relied on involved in at will employee an at will employee and as i said earlier article seventy eight would not be no way to remedy that publication with an article seventy eight procedure those two cases had to do with someone who were terminated he wasn't terminated he also wouldn't have had a  he didn't he wasn't given a reason for his demotion and the st amendment there's no requirement that someone speak as a member of the public which is what counsel said an employee has free speech rights as long as it took talking about a matter of importance to the public if an employee says i'm an employee at x y z corporation and there are a bunch of people that discriminate against women that's a that's a that's free speech he's not talking as a member of