different we've talked a lot about different fact patterns and so i just want to clarify for mr jones case he was not a residential advisers neither of these people were he was a recreation specialist and so he had a different position he was not a member of the union does say that his hours were reduced his job to change he's also one of the people who what with the rehire states that he faced determination not a failure to hire and so with his case what we have is the allegation that there was a probationary period and that there was no no reason no link between his comments to someone at work about his religion and then the subsequent terminations and we would probation which means he could be terminated for any reason as long as it wasn't a reason that violated the law agreed agreed ok do you think so what do you have to show that it's related to his being at his best allegation would be that he is muslim i'm guessing again what with his with his complaint as the court has pointed out there are allegations that he saw people with no experience getting managerial positions cookies and or whether they were but that's all he said was in a different manner he didn't give any specifics of to what he saw with respect to any other employee that is correct but that is the reason why he believes that this was a pretext if it he's again to suspect yes that he was denied his position because of discriminatory reasons but do you think that's a thick enough if you began to suspect i believe it employment cases are not like lot of other cases they're built in large part upon circumstantial evidence and a lot of times in my experience with discovery with determining what was in the paperwork for a terminations decision things of that nature and so here on the job every day and you're able to observe what's happening you have more facts you can say this him even if you don't give the names you can say this employee was such and such a raise they committed this infraction and instead of being terminated they were given a slap on the wrist for the exact same thing that i did something more specific or someone was hired or someone made disparaging comments about me being a particular religion and after that i was treated different just some meat in the in the complaint ok you're on of the in my experience  where where there is a direct and i'll put it in where there are direct discriminatory statements being made by a supervisor or something of that nature and that's not here but there was a case something specific i practice employment law for a number of years before i became a judge i was on the other side of it but there are specific allegations that are generally made in employment cases brought to it and i would say that we met the standard that was required in this case and it still lacking specific facts that push it across the line into the realm of plausible from merely possible you know as as noted he alleged that he was treated he saw other employees being treated differently doesn't say if they're being treated better or worse i mean frankly could be either one based on the allegation that we have here so that's simply not clear caucasian employees being put into management roles again managers were treating noncom case employees differently than other employees but doesn't say how noted that other employees who are not african american who are led to continuing their employment despite breaking policies are having disciplinary issues doesn't give us any detail about that we don't know specifically what that means it could be other minorities other than african americans we know who are not african americans that's very unclear he witnessed several tiring and terminations decisions by adam's h r personnel that led him to believe that that person was falsifying claims against employees to reach pre determined outcomes were guarding minority employment that could very well be trying to get more minorities  employed to meet certain requirements that the federal government mandates it's again not clear exactly what that means and then the fact that he received no warnings wasn't given notice of this uses is not relevant probative of anything think that the larger point is many of these allegations though conclusory could be sufficient if there was sufficient specific factual detail included with it there simply was not and that's why the district court found that there was not a plausible claim for relief stated here and also i think why the district court didn't give leave to amend and this nd motion to dismiss because it had become clear that no more detail could be provided as the pale noted it's been factual details draw a connection between these alleged things you use you say you saw with other employees alleged facts to connect them to your own employment situation because as alleged now it's not clear that there is any  go through case by case on each one of these in point out what needed to be changed or did you do it globally now for every order dismissing each of the complaints he went through each of the claims claim noted why they were deficient cited examples of other cases that listed allegations that were found to be sufficient and noted that those examples such as those were not present in the pleading and went through into that for every claim and it was quite detailed quite uncomfortable for you i have to be honest i was not thrilled reading the order because i felt like literally it's a road map for a minute decision by the court and we are in recess until nine thirty am tomorrow morning