Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): himself as a citizen on a matter of public concern outweighs any injury the speech could cause to the employer’s interest in promoting effective and efficient public service. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). Kiser’s claim fails because he specifically alleges that he was expressing himself as a public employee, not as a citizen: “Defendants retaliated against and harmed [him] because he exercised his constitutional speech rights when he fulfilled his duties as Executive Administrator by not speaking publicly.” (Compl.t 70(c) (emphasis added).) By alleging that he was expressing himself in his official capacity as Executive Administrator, Kiser has pleaded himself out of court. See Youker v. Schoenenberger, 22 F.3d 163, 166-67 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 143, 103 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation (B) holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern (C) holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected (D) holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (E) holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity  as a police officer and not as a citizen
Output (English): holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern