at this point i say please be seated but i think you already are we have four cases remaining on our docket for arguments this morning and all of the st up calderon vs city and county of denver case number  we contend that miss calderon has pled valid st amendment retaliation claim and claim a violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine and the the judge actually has acknowledged that this calderon has a has met the standing requirements of article three so the  question here is whether she can this calderon can pursue her case in federal court and seek a remedy there as the district court pointed out there are really two different approaches or you whose on the issue of whether an individual can assert a civil rights claim in the case in which the  the relevant action is directed toward a corporation and the st set of cases of course is duraid and pagan and call that the preempted right  honor absolutely and that is what we're arguing here is that the the action well taken against for the major actu well taken against the corporations is also taken cases and in those cases the court said that the individual pursuing a simple right axiomatic standing basically  that the the violation of the civil rights is in itself a personal and direct injury to the plaintiff separate from that of the corporation and therefore right and specifically the right to speech without retaliation from the government and the right to be free from unconstitutional conditions  on the exercise of her speech those are the specific rights that are being asserted i thought i'm also asserting th amendment equal protection oh yes i'm sorry your honor and equal protection we focus so much on the st amendment right the the i'm glad to say that yes discrimination your honor and retaliation for opposing discrimination i think the really important point here is that the serrano line of cases that approach is really more appropriate but it's also supported by the case well in this circuit and specifically as they went into some detail in my brief about i think hobby lobby and i understand that there was a majority opinion on standing and that that judge briscoe had most striking was his statement that the greens were human beings and as such had individual rights and in that case the right arguably part of the but how does that help you here i think it helps your honor because the court did not find that it could not even get to the merits of the case the grub's did not direct us to that that axiomatic standing approach i'd also point out that if the court finds that the right to practice trade or the right to enjoy your cabin can get standing st amendment rights in the whole hierarchy of things are much more important there have been other cases in other individual right and i think that's it at the heart of this matter doesn't this calderon have an individual right that she can assert in this court i'm sorry in in this employees were actually deprived by the state statute of being able to practice their own tradecraft correct yes your honor what has the city of denver done here to profession or using her skills and i think that that's an excellent point your honor but i think the the injury here is is many fold that the major injury is that her speech has been chilled she had to very direct and personal interest in being able to criticize the city without having a very realistic stations without losing her your emotional damages damaged your reputation remember that the the nonu of the contract is not the only in the cheer there's also the the allegations of sexual how is that of a violation of constitutional rights that's not a violation of constitutional rights your honor that is the the injury that comes from the violation  counsel could i before we run out of time and interested in your clarifying what exactly the nature of the community reentry program what's you've referred to a corporation but was the c r p a corporation what sort of city entity was it a nonprofit i'm just not clear from the materials we have exactly what it was yes your hon on the fundamental flaw in place of complaint is that she is bringing claims to vindicate it even though it was c n d says contracts that was not renew focus is on credential standing and the position advocated by ms calderon that there should be an exception to the prevention of standing rd party standing rule if a well if i understand your question the district court in what the city i die i want to know what you meant by that sentence in your breaks not what the district court said what did you mean she was injured and she is seeking compensatory and other damages related to her injuries so it's clear from the face of the complaint she is not trying to assert any type of  rd party claim she is not trying to assert any type of derivative claim on behalf of the entity and it would be a different analysis if she was but she is asserting claims to indicate  injuries so that was the point that we were trying to make an operator on all right i'm i'm i'm still having a little trouble with as if she's asserting her own claims she's not asserting a claim on behalf of the rd party is she but what am i missing here i think the i think the disconnect is even if she is even if she classifies for claims as individual and personal to her and i one disagree that the st amendment claims are individual claims part of the a pretentious standing analysis still requires the court to determine whether she is really just asserting injuries that are merely derivative of the injury to the end and i think that was the point that we attempted to make in our brief and that the district court and for size as well these claims are merely to r of of the loss of c and this is contract let let me just one other follow up the the equal protection claim as i understand it is an allegation that she was treated  differently from male counterparts who run these these programs now why wouldn't that not only give her article three standing but avoid any credential standing concerns because that is a claim that the city acted directly against her in a discriminatory or i think the important point that  the case law establishes is that political analysts even if it's directed at the individual is insufficient to establish credentials and ing and we have  cases we have the guides case from the circuit where the plaintiff owner made a very similar argument your honor she argued your discrimination was directed at me because of my race now the district that i believe judge pressed go and this circuit disagreed and and found it that the plaintiff in guides has not raised a claim that has any anything but the rivet of of the injury to big corporation so again plaintiff can allege individual rights plates of ken couch those claims and explain those claims in any way she wishes that part of the analysis still requires the court on the face of the complaint to determine whether or not those claims are merely derivative of the injury to the corporation that's part of the analysis in fact i would argue that that is the central part of the analysis and the district court did a very very thorough and this is wro unless that is the same in this case and as her previous employer not i don't know that i would agree with that your honor i think i mean you are correct i think the prudential standing inquiry but agree that it is plaintiff specific then does that mean you are saying that it was the ending is really a causation issue and that is for example but for the injury in this case to the employer the employee would have no claim is called and for that reason prudential standing prohibits her from pursuing your honor i think that that question gets to the definition of derivative so even though the claims may be different if if the point of would not have her own individual c your honor i've never seen a poor describe it as but for causation in describing the derivative nature of claims i've heard courts use terms as a consequence of so i think it would be very similar so to your question and i think way of looking at this particular situation do plaintiff's claims of injury to her but i'll ations of her constitutional rights are they merely a consequence of c n b c is loss of a contract and on the face of the complaint the district court said yes and said that there was no suggestion otherwise and that  that's correct also courts have recognized an exception to the shareholding shareholder standing rule and rd party standing rule when the alleges a direct personal injury why wouldn't that exception apply here even if the claim is derivative if it's a direct personal injury  your honor i think it is helpful as this bangor noted that the line of cases where that there are some distinct factual similarities so to our facts here  they're alleging individual constitutional rights and that those are an exception fall within the shareholder standing law the courts disagreed they looked at that economic injury to the employing entity in those three cases and they did not accept the argument that even though these are personal constitution rights cases that they would fall within the exception at me personally so therefore i fall within the shareholder standing exceptions and that the court disagreed it doesn't that analysis is plaintiff's that the most important part of the analysis is plaintiff's injury not what other and not the government actor directed their clock alleged retaliatory activity at that particular was a st amendment association claim but there were additional i believe other constitutional claims alleged was a sort of retaliatory association st amendment thank you there are suggestions in the complaint that was open title correct there there were claims but again to the extent this contract was not renewed and or terminated those claims belong to c n d c and not the point thank you thank you counsel banker yes your honor i am just going to ask the court committee look at this concept of injuries a little differently and injuries because the cases talk about if you have the same injuries then you you can't bring the claim reputation loss of employment so if we look at the cases as matters of redundancy then we have redundancy of injuries and the doraine and the haagen case