Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that their complaints about working conditions were protected by the First Amendment: A “public employee may not transform a personal grievance into a matter of public concern by invoking a supposed popular interest in the way public institutions are run.” “[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the public would be interested in the topic of the speech at issue but rather is “whether the purpose of the [the plaintiffs] speech was to raise issues of public concern.’ ”... The record in this case reveals that the speech of [plaintiffs], while ostensibly intermingled with issues of child safety and DeKalb DFCS mismanagement, was not intended to address matters of public concern from the perspective of a citizen. See White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson, 991 F.2d 1049, 1059 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 510 F.3d at 1344-45 (some internal citations 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that even as to an issue that could arguably be viewed as a matter of public concern if the employee has raised the issue solely in order to further his own employment interest his first amendment right to comment on that issue is entitled to little weight (B) holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   (C) holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief (D) holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal (E) holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on his or her employers reaction to the speech
Output (English): holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief