that the reorganization of the northampton county solicitor's office in two thousand and four soon resulted in the elimination of both of the full time assistant solicitor positions that did not res discrimination based upon political affiliation and in writing to the plaintiff's failure to establish that discrimination elimination of the positions in this reorganization by the county requires that as a matter of the rawer this court find that the plaintiff was not entitled to a due process procedure pursuant to the reorganization exception to due process let me ask solicitor don't have authority to fire anyone they couldn't have fired miss me and seen me if they wanted to they have to go through the process provided in the county which requires them to make a recommendation to the position of a full time assistant solicitor you have to get through the process of making a recommendation to council which is right mr brown mistress the we have did and having the county council and act in discrimination based upon political affiliation and the plaintiff presented no other basis upon which she was claiming that there was a pretext or sham she had an opportunity to do so and  political affiliation and that was again the cases that deal with the issue that duffy cases from the first circuit that indicates that  cutting measures doesn't need to be due process provided the process is to participate in the questions that were submitted to the jury by the district judge that's wrong i mean it is a really remarkable document because it covers really all the bases that are pertinent to this very complicated case but the very first question is do you find the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that jim henson his position is a full time solicitor that now your honor that's not correct because when the jury decided that there was no political affiliates discrimination that in effect meant that whether she was career service or not she wasn't entitled to  due process hearing she may ask in in the north hampton county home rule charter section eight or two years is understand your position right now you're telling us that she was at will right well it was yours is it your position right now our position is that she was at will based dealt with the issue of whether eight eight municipal entity the head of the executive in a resort the entity can rely upon the advice and consultation of a solicitor nobody should be required to have an attorney to represent them who they don't have confidence in trust in and that's what the next case talked about that that's what the native case talked about the cases that we cited in our brief contend that they fit in and that's the truth there is no right well they found that she was queer service but again based on the reorganization exception it doesn't matter whether she's career service or not the reorganization exception applies her own conduct she was not being disciplined she was not being laid off because of her performance she was laid off because the county was reorganization we're organizing the solicitor's office based upon reorganization it provides a nine o five that they the county executive has the power to organize and reorganize the structure of the agencies under his direction and supervision and to reza sayah and reassigned their functions powers and duties by submitting to the county council a written proposal on the matter which is what he did in this instance and the county council then made the decision to adopt a resolution to eliminate or for any purpose and again a due process hearing the intent of that is to provide in india and employee with the opportunity to to fight charges relating to claims that they acted inappropriate or are being charged with disciplinary actions in this case they're seeking the due process would be with respect to whether or not the the county is actually saving money whether the reorganization is appropriate or not that's not what a due process hearing is meant to address so it again as i as i indicated initially it would be thewe will for the county to have a due process hearing when you're talking about the issues of whether reorganization of an office was appropriate whether the cost cutting measures that the office is taking is appropriate and the plaintiff had plenty of opportunity to provide that evidence to the jury they are hearing from your case strictly from the standpoint of the county but what about  right if what if we accept her position and she fully expected that her job would be would be a career job that she was not a political appointee well she actually she ended up made the argument that as a matter of wrong i'm sorry let's go back to the issue that we go way up should we take into account her expectations when she took the job now i don't i don't think that what her expectations are affect whether or not she can have the expectation that she's going to have a prominent position and that all kind position will never be eliminated i don't think that i don't think any employee in government service can expect that their position will continue for as long as they want to stay in that position because governments under the civil service employees career service employees even if those positions can still be eliminated your honor we don't right and we she was given an opportunity to show up at a hearing without an attorney rat the at the employee appeal board hearing she had an attorney she was never given a decision right now decisions are m rather there was a decision that the board of a split evenly to two so they should got a decision with respect to that which would alternately have he she would have the way in this case runners of have focused directly in on what the point is in this particular appeal the case is really not that complicated the case in my view is really rather simple it just became complicated because the county refused to acknowledge their acknowledge points out that such nato to who are exempt service employees and says everyone else is a career service employee entitled to due process and title to a property interest in their position do you make of the argument that reorganization trump well again the county chooses treats the home or charter and and it's policies like it's al a carte menu that they can pick something off one day that they like and ignore the rest that the council failed to tell you is  policies of northampton county and it's particular it's code three point five two five which we refer to in our brief that is a section of the code that says that the county has the authority to do up to two employ eliminate positions but it goes on to say any employee who was aggrieved by that and feels that that it is not appropriate has the right to file a grievance and to that the selection of the particular right off unit was arbitrary capricious or a violation of law so they're telling you on the one hand we have the right to recognize but what they're failing to tell you is they also gave the employees due process rights for those who when there's a reorganization  their own policies say you have the due process rights to appeal that particular decision and that's what occurred in this particular win situation when it's it's on page forty seven of our brief and it's at forty their employees when there's a write off their right to file an appeal if you look at the the the cases that deal with we're organization there's a difference between the standard that's applied in a reorganization of title case and the standard that's applied in a due process case and we haven't talked about what the standard is in a due process case this arises when there's an allegation that the reorganization was a sham as we allege that was in this particular case and that what the county in actuality the county knew we got us of rather spend political affiliation or not they knew they couldn't get rid of joe me and see me for whatever reason they want to get rid of john nance you need cause of the home rule charter and have protected status as a career service employee so they decided a reorganization let's say this is real organization and as the court noted i believe it was in the next case if you don't follow the standard and look at the fact that there could be something arbitrary or capricious about it where that it could be it could not be reorganization factor which was not in this case anyone could say reorganization to get rid of someone the reason this was not a bonafide we were going to zation this particular cases down to look at what was done by the county be careful these people and he was talking about that the two full time assistant county solicitors may well be career service employees and if they are career service employees they are entitled to due process and if we terminate them they're going to a e that it was politically motivated once that memo was prepared they did nothing further absolutely nothing to research whether or not that in fact what he was alleging in his initial memo was correct and whether there was any way he provided a lot of testimony as to what he did to prepare and to research whether or not effect time the system counted source or was required he looked at other counties he did research as to the work that was to be that needed to be done and his attention has testified intention was that the creation of the photon position was to avoid the change of administration and the change of political parties to provide continuity in that position and he said that's what he had found in other counties nothing was done by on this case to do that kind of research the the position was intended not to be a political position and if you look at what the county's own witnesses testified to at the time of trial they said this is not a political position there's no no political affiliation required in this particular position be so when you look at the motivate when you look at what the end result rise of this for your organization and the cases that are cited like in the count brief there's a bit apartment it's a lemonade it there's a position that's a limited there's no longer a need for the particular job that's being a lemonade in this instance that wasn't the case the same work the gentlemen seen was doing had to be done it on it was done for efficiency and i had question a trial or something called the best product that they could have done that human resources could have done to see what the rock rogue rise of the assistant county assessor's both time and part time to see if it was necessary for them to change this position for any reason they didn't do that what they did do after the election was propose a seven hundred fifteen thousand dollars contract even though they're claiming they're trying to save money a seven hundred fifty thousand dollar is to get rid of her just to get rid of her not to always have all the jury has to find is that it was an arbitrary or capricious decision made on the part of a county the county wanted the jury to find out rather it was a legitimate reorganization there's a your adversary's argument that you have to get in now since the jury found against in the first amendment claim you can't claim pretext you don't agree with that i don't agree with well i think i'm not quite sure how counselors ar necessarily the area of the mob that she practices regularly she grew up in the county solicitor's office her private practice was extremely limited before she went to a county solicitor's office and i don't think that you can hold it against her but she's a lawyer in terms of not being able to have somebody is not allowed to have an attorney there well her position in the solicitor's office was to provide advice to the human relations office she handled nido see claims only happened or  t decision at the step three process relating to her grievance that she did appeal to the appeal board she was provided notice of the intention  republican and one was a democrat so again it goes back to where this couldn't be a sham based upon political motivation and there is no other basis upon which she claimed that this was she was being discriminated against if she doesn't have a political discrimination claim then this is the reorganization can't be assured it was then it would be futile for her to to have  to to support her due process crime but that's not what they claimed in front of the jury they had an opportunity to make those arguments to the jury and the jury found in favor of the defendants on their political affiliation discrimination quite again i go back to the point where that resolves the case because under the reorganization exception she wasn't entitled to due process and you know even if she was she receives due process