know what against cook county is our next case for argument discretion in that report applied the wrong standard that applicable to the summary judgment rather than the motion to dismiss which was before the court it is important to recall that the district court dismissal was on the federal motion to dismiss does not test whether the plaintiff will prevail on the merits but instead test whether to claim it has properly stated its claim on the federal rule eight the plaintiff only needs to give enough details about the subject matter  likely as the u s supreme court stated there is no probability requirement and a motion to dismiss any specific facts are not necessary the statement you only give the definition that part meet the statement  no disciplinary actions up until his terminations in two thousand and thirteen and what happened here in essence is that the cook county employees concocted a phony false pretentious story to get rid of an employee they reached a conclusion first and then they arranged the facts and false witnesses including the four who filed a complaint for  show up at a trial because they did not want to commit perjury and use that as a pretext to hire an employee who apparently whose whose only sin was that he was promoted somehow he was going to go postal at work and commit some unspecified violent acts which there was no support for at any point in his entire history so we have a violation are you complaining about their will by let me there is no allegation that he has a protected property interest in his job and that's the basis upon which the court dismissed the procedural due process case even high degree of workplace intrigue doesn't shock the conscience to make out and adequately pleaded substantive due process claim and there's no race based or other class based discrimination claim pleaded for purposes of an equal protection claim so so what constitutional violation do those allegations of workplace and treat support for the constitutional violations which were alleged in the first amended complaint dark number twenty this palace intrigue and to a violation of those constitutional rights vicious so the deep deep concept of shocking one's conscience i think the court will admit is a subject one and what is shocking here is that the county employees including the office of the independent inspector general it appears who was investigating a contract for improper political reasons investigated this mr katz and i was brought in to the office of the inspector general for a meeting or an  reasonable amount of time she given to an attorney or a person what does this have to do with the constitution i repeat my colleague's question this might be interesting as a state off theory how is it related to the constitution of the united states while the separation any clause in the constitution about time to review documents  the district court said that doesn't matter to the constitution because there is no property interest in the job the property interest means a legitimate claim of entitlement established by state bargaining employee he was in a supervisory position but was not an exempt employee he was covered by a collective bargaining agreement and the collective broader agreement in addition to the cook county policies and procedures provided for sick certain procedural safeguards have you checked the supreme court of the united states on that question we have and the supreme court has encountered before a claim that procedural you're now making which is also in your brief is in the teeth of the unanimous supreme court opinion which you do not cite for attempt to distinguish agree it come back to this question sure judge sykes asked and i have asked how was there a property interest in the job and the only answer you gave to me was the answer rejected by all was there any other way in which your client had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the job mr get in ellison at will employee covered by the agreement he had a right not to be treated in a disparate manner compared to his fellow employees and that doesn't sound like a legitimate claim of entitlement that sounds like something you argue to a labor arbitrator sure it's a pretty fundamental principle that federal law does not prohibit for all incorrect arbitrary disrespectful employment decisions not federal statutes and certainly not the federal constitution i might understand your being in state court under state law but the your problem is you're having trouble articulating a federal theory as opposed to a general sense that something unfair and the basic issue here judges that on a motion to dismiss a well established standard applies and we argue  they did found it necessary to do some of them is not facts the problem is are ticky awaiting how the claim is a real one right and you get to do that in  on your feet here but if you can't articulate a federal fury what's left while i believe judge that the causes for relief are outlined in the federal in the first and then the well he certainly articulated some facts here this morning that have never been before in the complaints or in the in his brief to this court but at the end of the day this court is absolutely correct that there's no constitutional violation alleged no cost to civil violations play so i will unless there are questions for me on that i will move briefly for the reasons this panel has articulated properly concluded that a third bite at the apple would not make the complaint better perhaps longer but certainly not better and if this