chordal proceed to the rd q s word versus the city of chicago there was an illinois state law breach of contract claim brought by sergeant word he contended in the complaint that the city had offered a fair and impartial examination that he accepted that he paid for that and they took the examination now that examination was supposed to be fairly administered by an impartial rd party in part to prevent cheating and under illinois law the elements of a breach of contract claim were sufficiently clad illinois courts have found that bridge contract claims exist in a variety of circumstances including by even ordinance providing for different rights and here we think that there was a plausible claim that a contract existed for a fair examination now that one of the damage was going to be contrary to twenty five dollars f the twenty five dollars fee and his time for obviously preparing and studying for an examination that was fl now the district court focused on the disclaimer in dealing with that claim the disclaimer is there a net but it did dress is a different issue dress is the issue of if there was no guarantee for promotion and obviously that's not why the sergeant word was focusing on the understands that by taking the test there was no guarantee of a promotion his issue is with the cheating on the test and whether or not that issue occurred in one of the examinations selfless fair who had an agreement to keep the cast confidential had rd party agreements with all the participants in creating examination to keep the information confidential to prevent sharing and  that includes in instances where there are general contractors in illinois and and agreements between owners and general contractors and the some contractors are considered a rd party beneficiary of those contracts week we think th the situation is more analogous to that in that the participants in the examination were intended to be the rd party beneficiaries of intangible shifts who are not is there an indication any objective indication of the city in the test company intended to give test takers the right to sue to enforce that contra i don't know about that you are obviously we only have limited information so we certainly didn't that isn't in the complaint you know there's we don't even have the actual agreement we just have an understanding of what the agreement was between the city and the rd party and what the agreement that rd party had between the subject matter experts were i don't think though that under illinois law you actually would have to have a right to necessarily to  in rd party beneficiary and then would have the right to sue the agreement necessarily between those two parties doesn't have to specifically give a rd party the right to sue have to  being fair and not to have the cheating would be in tended to confer a right on the participants obviously to take that very same nation and that's what we contend that this discrete group of test takers would be the intended rd party beneficiaries and under illinois law a federal court sitting in diversity should have allowed that claim to proceed or if the federal claims were dis has an active specific statute that prohibits cheating and corruption in connection with these type of merit examinations what they try to construct as a whole system merits selection and in addition to that they have a specific statute that prohibits the furnishing of information to people to improve their chances on that examination and that more specific statute we believe coupled with the agreements that we not having that cheating there was no ifs you know a fair selection process very well i would also the theory would also presumably apply would say to not only f testing but fear interviewing processes so that you don't ask you credibly hard questions of some candidates and very easy ones of others right and no i think our our issue is more on the cheating issue not about the  provides remedies for that road but i mean other than prohibiting it there weren't any i down a fireball remedies that illinois law provides in this no remedies and what does that tell us illinois doesn't want to provide a remedy for that well the variety of reasons that i may have expected that people would provide some other type of remedy somewhere else or that they could just  court for federal constitutional violations it's possible and that's ok what i'm trying to get a is the problem that the city has identified in your in your theory that you seem to be trying to use the due process case to enforce a coin for fair procedures in the promotion process and we don't characterize it as that broad ours is more specific and focused on the cheating aspect and not necessarily the whole process or whether or not the test would be too difficult or too hard or anything like that it's more on the specific issue of supplying the testing answers to to a select group that would allow them to them prevail  and in other contexts there is obviously discretion in the promotion prata process and there is obviously discretion on to who you're going to promote who you might give  job to but we think under the statute there is no discretion to allow treating at cheating and it i think the chicago itself recognized that when it entered into these agreements with a rd party administrator to abstain simply keep the test itself from this this problem from occurring from the cheating from occurring so this is the city itself wanted that at least with a rd party administrator brief obviously of this crisis no question all those issues starting with the due process claim you have to look any farther than mr ward's brief to see how he characterizes claim this is page thirteen he drives a property i suppose of due process property right from quote state law governing be a process for civil service examinations and quote that that claim runs headlong that theory of due process runs headlong into big b m snowden this course on bank decision archie countless decisions that state laws providing certain processes and procedures do not create property interest for the purpose of due process and that's just the beginning and end of the due process claim absent of property rights there is no need for process and in going about depriving that right turning to the contract claim the two permutations of the contract claim st the idea that there is a direct contract the problem here is that mr ward's complaint all he offered was the statement that there was an offer illinois law is quite clear in this court applying illinois law has been quite clear that you have to look at the broader circumstances it's not just you can just look at isolated word or statement you have to look at the circumstances in general there are no allegations in the complaint regarding the circumstances we identify one problematic omission under illinois law it has to be an authorized individual to very unique circumstance it was that not only that there was an ordinance but there were specific representations made by various individuals about the nature of the job what sort of promises were being made like there was a rather comprehensive factual background provided to show that there was a contract there not just an order sometimes it's believed that that was just an ordinance created a contract all right but there was more than that to the court relied on quite a comprehensive factual background really it's completely unclear here who supposedly made this representation to mr word if it was just a casual statement if it was another officer we just don't know who movie it's not a casual statement that we're going to run the test on sleeve i would i would hope not but you know if you hear from other officer that they're saying this is going to be how it's done i just don't know i can't speak to it that's the problem here that you can only speculate it's not to that level of plausibility that someone with authority made an the his very theory is that state law i was somewhat surprised to hear mr word retreat from that during arguments his theory is that the fact that the state will enforce these procedures these procedural requirements in evaluating merit promotions that was the administrative context of mr overview might be available i'm not entirely for mary how that would come up but sometimes these sorts of decisions are made by administrative agencies of some kind but it seems undisputed here that there are remedies and state law and that was the part of the basis of this course decision in bigby itself that the state law remedies were available that you could go to state court and you know this court said that if there was a problem with the test that that was a perfectly adequate remedy isn't even over the contract so it doesn't even have a basis for believing that there was such an express statement and you know illinois law is perfectly clear that subjective intentions aren't enough  to the sort of a claim where there were a favored few and many well thought out in the cold we presented we only argued and question i want to make that perfectly clear if i was not in our brief that english would only address the the class of one theory that mr word presents here to the extent he's tried to expand beyond that of your st there's no dispute here mr word has never addressed and was never to be the inquest would bar a class of one theory  not even mentioned in either of us is opening over his reply brief but to the extent he tries to venture out into more of a gender based gender or sex i use as interchangeably not trying to take any position on those issues of course  this court's decisions in preston and jake and foreclose that we would just to be clear we're not saying that anguished would bar that but preston and jack and making clear that favoring significant others are personal relationships neither in purpose nor a fact is the offer nia be made by somebody with authority the allegation that complained of the city itself made the offer there's been no there was nothing raised in their their motion to dismiss and certainly nothing below that indicated there was some problem with authority and on a motion to dismiss such as the st complaint without anie replying or any additional offers and on that that we don't think that was a question that should appropriately bar breach of contract claim there is a there is often a fine line between you know substance and procedure and the prohibition on cheating which we are talking about we don't think that and and we think that's a little more substantive than this in this case and makes us a little different and we know in other cases that this court has indicated that a remedy such as a breach of contract action doesn't necessarily because that exists doesn't