liability after the issue qualified immunity i'd like to begin by highlighting two major distinction between this matter and my chair of specifically why qualified immunity should not have been granted here as it was speech concerned speaking at a union meeting where as mr goes to speech to various forms grievances and document requests and it happened the entire union chapter representation of union members and meetings with the administration reasonable person aware of whether or not by late the constitutional right so that in fairness and pursuant to the purpose of qualified immunity to protect public officials that you could say the defendant can be held to t is the policy of the new york city department of education if you're challenging the policy is is has been made essentially by the by the by the  argument is just that because nobody above the principle was going to change the letters the particular letters about the particular employees were the policy of the new york city department of education well  school so the idea is that the new york city department of education has a policy at this particular school of the using observation reports and letters as a weapon against recalcitrant the file like does it do anything well extremely narrow scope of review but regarding the actual filing of the charges when the teachers while the charges are pending in the future may be removed from the school there are certain the teacher could be ineligible for things are decided during the pendency there was no mechanism to review whether or not he should have been charged in the st place but just going back to your on his original question as to the significance of the underlined letters to file an individual observation reports under the st one the st one under question so it's true that we've said that when you're acting in a union to pass any because it's not part of your duties as an employee speaking as a private citizen but we've also said that when union speech or union grievances seems to be employee camps transform a personal grievance into a matter of public concern by invoking a supposed popular interest in the way public institutions are run so if interest be that you said well it's important and so the public must be interested in it but you're saying that you're saying that it just didn't even have a personal interest in the c six options he had no more personal interest in any other teacher in this chapter or any other union member for that matter that w set any other teacher but if but if it affects his working conditions well not knox i don't think it did because again whether they did it through the whether this proposal by mr and it was unilaterally implemented by him because you're a member of the union simply right it's not about a particular action you take as a member of the well i believe those cases were actually more about advocacy for the u discrepancies and budgetary irregularities we don't think that that's something that the public would be interested in is there something bigger just it was getting at when he requested the budget documents what was the purpose of there w but in the in this case you didn't have any allegation that there was some kind of widespread corruption going on he just wanted to get some insight into how the budget was being administered where all the money was going your i believe he had court i'm happy to answer any questions that the panel has about the title seven question but like mr harlow i'll limit my comments to the st amendment retaliation claims and make three basic points the st is that there was no public concern rather the grievances on the representation of other teachers all involved workplace issues internal to a single high school in the new york city school with some not bigger picture issues of federal and   a matter of greater importance to the community turning to the issue qualified immunity i have not seen in mr harlowe briefs or his argument just now where do you think that is that this quarter the supreme court has clearly southwest that a union official who filed grievances on behalf of the union shop part of school and represents other teachers is speaking as a private but it's been going on a matter of public concern and i know that mr harlowe relies on three district court decisions but there's a dictum but it's since been walked past and that cannot be reconciled with the subsequently decided chase by the supreme court and our study the bias so i just don't think you can rely on those district court decisions even assuming that they were competent to clearly establish the law the nd point i want to make as to qualified immunity is that if you look at the allegations and mr augustus complaints he specifies certain things that mr wrenn you compliance or speak to supplement his allegations in the court the final point i'd like to make is on the issue is school administrator who issues water supply or negative performance evaluation is not making final at most that would show that your in your with the final decision maker not a final policy maker on behalf of the entirety of the new york city school system and here i would also caution the court that i think mr arland argument and i i'm happy to answer any questions that any member of the panel has on that or on the title seven issues that the principal was the final policy measure with respect to denying the point to the ability to go on a professional course at the end right before she went on maternity leave and then also denying her  coming back to school at the end of that and ordering off ordering her off the school campus certainly i have not seen any district court decision or any decision where a court has held that allegation that a principal is retaliating against a teacher is sufficient to render back the principal is final policy maker for the entirety of the school district i mean it's a decision by the principal to deny somebody the ability to go on a professional course can be a policy of your city department of education why can't the policy of using observation reports and letters to retaliate be a policy even against s to the extent that he just scribes the policy at the new york city department education is established by law much higher than the level of a principal at a high school and it clearly outlines what needs to be substantiated before discipline tanner camp and in that respect principal at a high school doesn't have the kind of discretion over individual action that you could take against a teacher comparable to the back of the  regardless it sounds like your st position was you don't really think that that is a policy of the near to department of education if it's done it individuals school yes that's correct i think that individuality and discretion is a problematic aspect for  fairly considered a matter of interest to the community at large grievances how to do with the fundamental aspects of unionization they had implications far beyond the school as indicated by this arbitration decision which we included as part of the record so i guess i just think this is incorrect judge moore you know i have enough questions thank you