the city of chicago that she engaged in constitutionally protected speech and reporting the continued violence of a violent officer including to the internal affairs department against her supervisors warning not to embarrass the superintendent the district court granted dismissal on the pleadings making a finding that plaintive speech as a matter of law was simply speech not citizen speech that did not rise to a level of public concern the district court erred in fact and in law plaintiff was an office of news affairs employed with the chicago police department she was the news media liaison her speech is citizen speech under a straightforward application of car savvy as clarified in affirmed in lane vs frank supreme court twenty fourteen a simple application of gaar said he and lane's ordinary daily job duties test speech commissioned or created by the employer that the employee was paid to do the employee's work product renders the only conclusion that the speech was citizen speech not employees speech lorikeet the acts report of misconduct was not a part of her ordinary daily job duties the defendant has never once contended that it was and the city decidedly did not create or commission speech that it in fact warned her against making and paragraph fifteen of plaintiff's complaint she extensively listed her ordinary daily job duties as a news media liaison as including things as part of her job description itself responding to increase from the news media monitoring the e mail accounts creating press releases  employment context that an employee report back to his coworkers and that's the main that were in here this report they had behavior by a coworker your honor that quintessentially employment related speech what lane tells us is that the lanes expressly admonished the lower courts and said they were reading our study far too broadly and what lane tells us is that general obligations by virtue of one's job title as is the case here do not equate with ordinary daily professional responsibilities not only does lane tell us that but this court itself and personnel ski versus beyond already x clarified the current parameters of car sadi when it expressively rejected that is general obligation of employment in that case a prosecutor the diff he could translate into ordinary daily speech the curzon as he court express rejected that very argument reversed the lower court and just dismissing the complaint and stated very clearly that in revers daily professional activities in this court the courts this court said this conclusion follows only if one places dispositive way on an excessively broad job description without assessing as a practical matter what task person to i do not i don't agree that her daily ordinary job professional duties required her to do that lurky i did not even have traditional law enforcement duties she didn't make arrests she was she had this was not in her and that at all and what are said he says in read in response to justice souter raising this very question about general obligations of employment or said he says no employers cannot rely on those types of excessively broad job descriptions to take from the first amendment she has to take speech that would otherwise be protected out of the first amendment and that by simply relying on these general obligations the city has never contended that they can meet the task of ordinary daily job duties that's why they rely on a general order that of pi's to all twelve thousand chicago cops and probably beyond but are said he and lane are very very clear that that type of general obligation by virtue of one's job title is not the type of speech that will fall within our set the scope for said he basically says if you're sitting down at your job and you're doing your job in the product of your report is something that your employer disagrees with that's not protected speech but if you step outside your job and if you raise your hand and stick your neck out and you say i think i have something to report and you are essentially a whistleblower which is what laura kiya was that is protected speech and this is consistent with the court's nearly half century and well repeated mandate that public employees do not check their constitutional rights at the door public employees the court has recognized time and time again including n p r sadi unlikely that they are the ones best suited to report on what ails the government agencies that they work for and it's critical that the first amendment protects their speech clearly here in the city of chicago the code of silence and these a supervisor's inaction toward violent cops is something the else are you department is not a complaint police officer who was abusing a citizen in a police citizen encounter on the street this isn't a completely internal complaint where every episode of disputes between coworkers in the public employment context and that's far afield of what i said the doctrine of lies to your honor the defense made that argument and i think that due respect is a gross trivialization of what's going on here this is not a situation where bob cases c z have taken the stapler all the time he gets angry and goes to the supervisor and says that darn sees he's never going to return my saber this is an officer with a known history of violence who in fact was found guilty of excessive while he was in the office of news affairs and was so in bold and because the city has never once taken action to remediate his violence that in the very same building a police headquarters that the superintendent offices in he felt so  that he committed a violent criminal act toward my client wish to which another employee felt was so severe she was afraid he was going to take out his gun and shoot laura p b x and lurk e p i is after all a citizen she does not either her constitutional rights or her protections at the door when she walks inside that police office and with regard to you the aspect of police misconduct it's still police misconduct under the end of the chicago police board roles which the city set forth in our view improperly the city as our briefs rely on submitted a thousand of a thousand pages of documents which really clarifies that this in fact is a case that should have a fully developed factual record and should not have been dismissed on the pleadings because the city by virtue of doing so has converted their underlying motion to dismiss to a summary judgment plaintiff is entitled to develop a factual record to rebut those things but the city's documents that they rely on three important things number one they're self defeating with regard to employ speech because those documents identify the office of news affairs serves as a liaison between the department news media relative to the following activities number one gathering information on crimes crime prevention and police activities number two writing press releases number three administering alert along program for members of the news media and number for dissemination of information to the public t news media nothing in that description says that these that the office of news affairs employees have a general every day daily routine duty to report misconduct to their fellow officers nor do they even have traditional law enforcement duties conversely in that very same document the document goes on to say that a bureau of unchecked investigative affairs employee on the other hand would have a duty to investigate misconduct and i would agree if she were and in an i e d employee that that would be exactly or saudi that was her work product job descriptions are are largely irrelevant here again the proper focus is the nature of this speech that is alleged to be protected here and if it's related to the conditions of employment then it's climate related this was a complaint about a coworker harassing your client your honor that is a characterization that if the defense wants to argue to a jury they're free to do so however it is not a characterization that this court can accept on him on a pleadings motion because i have course would argue to a jury that this is a very important complaint of put of a police officer's misconduct that was so violent somebody thought feared for that he was going to take out his gun and it was an officer of the history of violence and that the supervisors did nothing about it so laura kuby actually matters in her own hands did exactly what a citizen can do and went to the internal affairs  made that finding on the pleadings against the plaintiff and then engaged in the exact same fundamentally erroneous principle law that he was admonished not to by this court and kristof ect i see that i am going into my  i will just state that the content of the speech is what matters most the defendant here concedes that there is a strong public interest in the police department's vigilance over its officers and the misconduct police officers that's exactly what plaintiff reported as well yes responsibility on an every day basis to ensure the safety of the prison gate when she tried to make a stop and they the other officers asked and told her not to search their car which she thought was contraband she went and told her superiors hey these guys are telling me not to search the car so then she was taken off of that duty and she brought her case that was absolutely ghar sadi that's in the scope of her every day job duties to maintain the security of that gate here  ak is not an internal affairs officer she's office of news affairs news media liaison with zero duties as a defendant has never argued that her ordinary duties include reporting misconduct i will reserve the balance of my time for  expression did not address a matter of public concern this morning i intend to focus my remarks on those two issues and with respect to all our alternative arguments i know nel and the conspiracy count we will rest on our brief  s the court has specific questions turning first to employ job duties keep the outcome of this case is squarely controlled by gar study along with the line of this court cases that followed our study that deal ex explicitly with law enforcement employers and those cases we cite at least six of them in our brief hold that where a law enforcement employer has rules or regulations or general orders that require certain risk reporting quoting with reporting misconduct that is within the scope of the employee's job duties and speech pursu honor that certainly is possible that she i have those concerns in her head but there are two parts to the test as your honour's aware and that seems to be on the second prong about whether the contents of her speech was on the subject matter of public concern and on that prong it is the expression the will the manner in which she expresses her complaint not just whether the subject is potentially of public concern and as the court interests  explain it's not merely the secret tent that lies in the in the speaker's head it's the way in which that's expressed as conic and the other the supreme court cases make clear it is not enough for it to be on a subject that in a different context could be expressing a subject that's of public concern rather it has to be the test for the court is whether this particular expression was directed towards whether the point of this speech was directed towards of raising that public concern and in this case miss hubie act does not allege that the substance of what she said as opposed to what might have been thought the thoughts that were in her head was directed towards raising the subject matter of public concern she probably goes as far as she can with respect to the allegations about what she actually said but what she said was not directed towards raising mister background it was not directed towards raising the way her supervisor said handle that she alleges that she would limit is the focus of her remarks for her complaint was on court her personal or alter cation with mr zala so under this court's and the supreme court's precedent it's not enough that she the subject matter could in a subjective you're correct your craft around and i apologize so take subjective intent because lee atwater made hands are irrelevant absolutely the subjective intent is is not relevant unless what's actually expressed on the page may mat secret motive of the people making the contract it's what's expressed in the language of the contract what's expressed on the page and objectively because it is a question of law for the court that turns on the man expression so on that prong we submit that nothing in the complaints allegations supports that what the level public concern on the other prong regarding that is that is just a question of what the employer's real rules and expectations are and this court has held in a line it's cases that where there are job real rules and expectations that say you know rules and regs specs stations of law enforcement officers that require certain reporting then  promulgated rule and i don't know no no it has to be part of the employer's rules and expectations but not necessarily written now in any kind of written that having to be employment related it doesn't matter what the employer was expecting that's also a subject  honor what i mean a lot of the cases focus on what job duties are but that's just because of the fact pattern of the case i don't read any of that case law to establish a doctrinal requirement that there must be either a job description or some rules and regulations for the workplace that make reporting mandatory before this is considered employment related speech where we certainly agree that it doesn't have to be within a job description that's clear from gar sadi and that's clear from this other courts cases but it does have to be part of the job the job responsibilities it can't just be the studies cautioned against having it overly broad job description so that's perhaps where some of that comes from some of the concerns in the cases that it be within the employer's expectations for the employee but the point is that the employer if the employer is per acting pursuant to job duties that it was not addressing any sort of question about whether the the conduct at issue there was within the scope of job duties because they're the party said agree that testifying pursu apply that rule to law enforcement context and again the result was if there was a general order and we said six cases where if there is a general order that required the reporting then it was pursuant t duties and not constitutionally protected lane addressed a different kind of speech altogether it wasn't the question whether it was within the employee's job duties to testify pursuant to subpoena because everyone agreed it was not instead the court in lane was addressing whether speech outside of job duties that still related to the subject of the employment could be employed court speech or citizen speech in the court held that was citizen speech that's not the case we have here and in news q b does not even a take issue with the line of cases that we rely on that include how skins and cigs work and  first amendment claim was not sufficiently pleaded that was the ground for the district court's holding your honor but we submit in our brief and alternate ground that we raised below which was that the mon el claim also fails because a policymaker or widespread policy sufficiently and we also submit that the conspiracy count should be dismissed independently even if the count one against the individual survives because the conspiracy count the allegations fail to show that there was an agreement between those two individual defendants and so it didn't satisfy the pleading requirements for a conspiracy claim and also that the claim with the bard by the in trick or prick conspiracy doctrine so were the court to reverse and count one we still submit that the claim against the city should be dismissed because mono element requirements are not satisfied and also that the count two should be dismissed as a conspiracy can because that failed to complete a claim successfully so but we began first the court today with dismissed the entire complaint in the from the district court because on count one which ab what will specifically fight for them but we rely on general orders and the wools of conduct that applies specifically to police officers which require it when non supervisory member like  notify observes misconduct to immediately notify a supervisory member and prepare a written report to their unit commanding officer and because that is a clear expectation that the c p d has a fourth officer is no matter what division the officer serving in whether it's internal affairs or whether it's the office of news affairs is irrelevant because all officers are under these obligations to report it  expectations that c p t has for its employee and therefore if the job duty but the general orders are not necessary to your argument that that's correct i know you're not conceding anything with respect to administrative we're not conceding anything we're just saying that that's probably making the same argument we would administer it of employee the police department not under those general orders made a complaint that a coworker was harassing her you'd be here making the same argument even specific expression was not addressed to raising anything about mr zolli as a background that could be of interest to the public it was purely about the facts about what happened between mr zala and miss q b act in that particular incident and miss q b act if the federal constitution doesn't apply does not leave her without a remedy if she has other she has state law remedies and she has internal remedies through grievances and so forth but the question for the federal court is whether the constitution applies and where the speech is not protected because it falls outside of them the job duties and because it's not addressed to raising a point must be directed towards raising the matter of public concern it can't just be this could be of interest to the public if it had been expressed differently or in a different forum or written in a letter to the news letter it because otherwise then the federal courts would be involved in every kind of employment dispute because everything that's said in a government office could potentially be of public interest but that's not the test according to the supreme court in this court's interpretation so with all respect i to such a degree that another employee felt like she was going to get out her get out his gun and shoot her she also went there and reported that she had tried to address this with her supervisors and that her supervisors again in the face of zealous continued inaction did nothing so she took it into her own to a department that had the ability to do something about it the city is wrong to presume what the point of her speech is today they have not taken her deposition this is a pleading law which was a jury trial case the court cannot the defendant cannot presume that motive but she took it to a department the internal affairs department which is a public forum and the internal affairs department has the ability to take action and she remedy the problem and to finally look at this officers all and say enough is enough the action that they would take significantly would not benefit lorikeet the act it's all about accountability she didn't get any money just get promotion and she doesn't get anything like that by reporting officer q b actually reports him because as it steadily said in her complaint her welfare allegations that the court wasn't free to dispute that she was concerned for not just her own safety but the safety of others and her supervisors inaction in connection with her ports i agree that job descriptions don't matter but what that means undergo seti and interview when you read lane what that means is that job descriptions can either restrict or construct a plane of ordinary daily job duties the defendant today still did not because it cannot argue that the news media liaison has an ordinary daily job duty to go to internal affairs and report a widespread practice of rewarding a violent officers at the expense actually develop records that we do not have here in the district court erred in denying us but also all of those cases predate this court's opinion in curzon ascii which expressly rejects that very argument and predates laine the supreme court stated might be the one suspended or fired because these two felt so in bold and and this practice rewarding these guys instead of remediating their violence in fact resulted in her injury under sled versus lindsay this case is decision it says making the officers believe the inaction their actions would never be scrutinized resulting in the injury that leads to solace a sort of key at her report to internal affairs and her ensuing removal along with pres her corroborating witness from the o and a this is a  this is the cases we cite in our brief support that this is sufficient to establish practice and policy additionally your honor we did plead that again and stratton were final policy makers and where the cases say that if plaintiff can establish by virtue of the employment decisions not being reviewed by said by city council on the board there is not just been a de facto delegation of the employment decision but the policy making that sufficient to plead a mono claim so we respectfully ask this court to thirteen years and had more seniority and officers allah to date has never been reprimanded at all thank you