concern but you are correct it is about his about his trial i certainly agree with you that it's a matter of public concern but his complaint and his direct his communication with the school district was relevant to the specific instance with regard to this child not a broader failing of the school district in general with regard to bullying that's correct however that the case had it then proceeded as it is proceeding does implicate broader issues because the way the district dealt with this child in the negligence that they displayed obviously relates to but that doesn't necessarily make it a matter of public concern in the context of the of the claim raised by the individual whose life is caught up in the shortcoming by the school district and so i think that's where the case law is interesting and i think that think that if you study as i'm sure you have the season go a lot more cases what you're dealing with there were in one case complaints there by an employee about workplace violence dictated toward that employee which the court did hard to raise matters of public concern and a lot more likewise the complaints were about the individual and how the individual was treated by local police authorities which was deemed to raise a matter of public concern the distinction which has been drawn and i think the important distinction is in the is equal case my case from films thirty years ago and other like cases where you're dealing with an employee and you can't be a little older than that older than thirty anyway you know i've been doing this for thirty five years before you will in any event the issue that i'm trying to focus on and the line this court has drawn and as the court has acknowledged in its cases the line has not been exact and it's been veering one might say without being  uncomplimentary to the court the line that seems to be drawn is individuals who are complaining about employment related matters that pertain to them and seeking a remedy personal to them in the employment context those cases like told specifically have been viewed as different from chronic conic you had an individual who is plainly self interested that's a supreme court case but she in her questionnaire raised one matter which was viewed as touching  of public importance which saved her st amendment claim here the subject matter of the of the action like in susa is one which implicates a matter of public concern and that is sufficient i believe under your case law to fall within the st amendment jurisprudence in protections and this would be i understand your point but i think this would be the st case correct me if i'm wrong where in resample in those that claim there was no reference to any policy any other students there was it was literally just about the child the one child this would be i think the st case where we have said that even though we don't really know one child one person it's a matter of public concern well the place  disagree which is where you try to distinction in terms of not being about policy because clearly what was stated in the notice of claim is that despite the complaints of the parent who also happened to be an employee the district negligently responded it's true with regard to that matter but that those implicated question of broader policy and i think that's where these distinctions get a little bit muddled it's you have to be dealing as i tr to explain in my answer just west have to be dealing with something beyond just my child was bullied by another student you're dealing in order to have a notice of claim and a viable state claim with a contention that the district has done something wrong in light of dassow and other state policies which are it kill it that's as you know is a new revenue state policy intended to extirpate this from school districts so i think that it does necessarily implicate something broader and that's why i believe that the president understand your bullying any complaints about my child has been bullied would fall would sufficiently i believe that's accurate i think any complaint which raises a matter that's the same to me as looking at some of the cases which deal with expressions about racial discrimination in a school district someone says that that is racial discrimination the school district and they're not talking about their own specific employment circumstance that talking about a policy here i believe implicit in the notice of claim is that there is a policy in the school district which is not dealing with the issue of bullying he's not saying is drugs being singled out because he's a parent who happens to work in the school he's making an argument that negligently dealt with the issue and i think that would implicate necessarily discovery on broader issues i mean to follow up on  any time you have a complaint of discrimination or some other type of activity that is is of public interest and you but your particular rising it to the fact that you're upset with what happened to your child or not was under new york law a parent has a derivative claim with regard to injuries to their children for the expenses and they incur with regard to the to the injuries that they pay for the child right yes he didn't raise a derivative claim did he and it's not ridiculing the caption of the nor the claim is kimball on behalf of his shop which is how it had to be and because this his son does not have the capacity to speak if you will in that forum but given that his son doesn't have the capacity to speak the claim is essentially view that and he would he had put in to become a security officer yes the security officers people who do security like a football games and other sporting activity full time it's actually full time employment in the school district by the school district in that capacity it's a title civil service title school district and he had not been hired yet as such correct yes or wouldn't this require us to extend adler because adler if we were to say that there is a potential intimate association claim because we disagreed about the noise of claim issue that stays with you would we have to extend outward because adler and all the other cases that we've written on are about terminations from existing positions right that's but i think that's so you're saying that he ha s that this right would extend to his right to be hired absolutely in this circumstance absolutely because it's seems i mean at least again we're a motion to dismiss stage so we're standing that procedural point but given that where we are at that stage the evidence at least as we see it is that he would have been hired to do that for that position he's being fingerprinted he submitted his paperwork he'd gone enough through the process that's made clear that the only reason he wasn't ired was because of this is so c h so i don't think that's any great funny issue here in the district quite district is is the defendant and the district is the entity through its throat school board which took all of these actions that we allege that is that they refused to hire and because of the association with the sun and then they said to the the the town get him out of here to simplify it so there's no question here that this wasn't the policy of the district it was the school district which did this and it's not it's not of any facts  circumstances that ultimately the defendant did it and it would be consistent and i'm just trying to understand it would be consistent if some low level employee and removed his name from the list thinking he really shouldn't be working in the school given the from the school district in the formal letter that he was being he was being disallowed from these positions because of this association in other words there was a policy level decision made which asserted that was a sufficient basis to disqualify and i believe that sufficient messenger that is the messenger that elevates it i'm not saying it's a matter of trying to understand you are my argument is that it was it was a matter of policy making at a level be on mr parker who's the only individual names to parker was the messenger who was saying to him your applications up to the school board to see what they're going to do with that's what the complaint alleges and then the word back was we can't put you on the schedule it wasn't caucuses that we're seeing because because decision makers ok thank you for your purse thank you context issue frankly i have a problem with his assertion that it's kimball speech why isn't his son speech in kimball's just the medium through which a son speaks because his son is not doesn't have legal capacity it has to be paid into a fund in any withdrawals from that has to be approved by the court until the child reaches majority which time the the money goes the child is not the father's money it's not the father's claims child's claim this is only intimates why i asked about the derivative claim quite so but but the district court said that this was the father's speech but the but no one could file a claim other than a parent for this child isn't the child speech i think it's a because your child with someone else following on his behalf file the lawsuit would certainly have an intimate right if someone set you on fire you because your son or wife filed a lawsuit on behalf of your son you would certainly have an intimate association going right i think you can concoct one from that but i think in the facts in this case you have the allegations of bullying or all relationship to the status of the parent with this s r o status school resource officers that document for the whole world to see it wasn't i know it started out with the nails in conversations but ultimately it was a public document which would favor finding it to be a matter of public concern yeah i don't agree with that and i don't get that because a notice of claim i school district it's not publicized unless somebody makes a request to see it so there is there is no publication beyond it's a pretty public certainly it's a precursor but yet the question whether it's big whether it's a narrow because knowledge that now into bulling of the sun it's building of the sun because of the status of this father is clearly of you know a personal grievance in every sense of the word there is nothing in this complaint nothing in the notice of claim for that matter believe how they make him carry it it's not about that and a particular child not being able to carry his books and some claim or a television for a complaint about that if if if that magic word is all it takes or that's kind of have the plaintiff in school because his son's a student there and there was this is there was no allegation of any kind of anti number to some policy of having been adopted here there was no allegation that the district done something rational with regard to establishing such a policy it was and even that allegation there was a nd cause of action this complaint the allegations in support of the nd course of action which incorporated allegations before that specifically incorporated  mentions the board about the board president not approving a transfer which is not a basic allegation for in support of any of the claims here so in this is the kind of cases that where motions to dismiss are made because it's just it's just this conclusory allegation parent makes a complaint of bullying and is then and is then subject to adverse action by a school district that would open a floodgate of litigation i've been doing this work for forty years frankly this fact pattern i have never seen this fact pattern before i'm not sure that holding that way would open a floodgate of cases of any sort and that's to suggest that school districts somehow routinely engage in retaliation against parents and have that  even at opportunity when the parent has issued a complaint the notice of claim i mean that that just breaks me as i mean i know we have horribles to always be concerned about extending precedent but i don't think that is a plausible statement i just i think that's rhetorical and should be discounted nd of all my client as the complaint makes clear went through a hiring process that lasted a number of months he went through a civil service list he was an eligible list he was number six on the list people was taken from that list as was shown given appointments on a provisional basis then there were two individuals who were appointed to the position by the board he was a qualified person who alleges that those individuals had less qualifications than either that's what's in the complaint and was passed over because he was told he would not be art because his child was in fact in the school mike why it doesn't know exactly and judge this goes to judge wesley's point about the he doesn't know exactly who made the decision but he knows it was made at a high level because he was told by not any other security guard but by the head of security mr walton and about his status and this development is so identified so i don't think