FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 21, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble J ohn F. Na

ng le, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Missouri, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

______________________ N o. 06- 11967

______________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -020 28 -C V -C C -1 C L A R I N D A B O Y C E , K A T I N A R O B I N S O N , P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , ve r s us G W E N D O L Y N A N D R E W , K A T H E R I N E H E R R E N , G L E N D A M C M I L L A N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 21, 2007) B ef ore B IR C H and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and N A N G L E , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

P E R C U R I A M: T h is in te r lo c u to r y ap p e a l f r o m th e d e n ia l o f

q u a lif ie d im m u n ity to supervi sors i n a coun ty D epar tm entof F am i l y a nd C hi l dren S ervi ce s ( “ D F C S ”) r e q u ir e s u s to d e te r m in e if in te r n a l c o m p la in ts a b o u t c a s e lo a d s a r e c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d p u b lic s p e e c h th a t s h ie ld th e e m p lo y e e s f r o m te r m in a tio n o rtr a n s f e r . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e d e te r m in e d th a t c a s e m a n a g e r s w h o c o m p la in e d r e g a r d in g th e ir c a s e lo a d s h a d r a is e d a p u b lic c o n c e r n e n c o m p a s s e d b y th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. W e R E VE R S E a n d R E MAND . I . B AC KG RO UN D D e k a lb C o u n ty D F C S ( “D e k a lb D F C S ” ) , a c o m p o n e n t o f th e G e o r g ia D epar tm entof H um an R es ou rc es (“ D H R ”) D i vi si on of F am i l y a nd C hi l dren S e r v ic e s , is r e s p o n s ib le f o rin v e s tig a tin g a n d s u p e r v is in g c a s e s in v o lv in g c h ild w e l f a r e a nd a bus e i n D e ka l b C ounty . P l a i nt i f f s - appe l l e e s , C l a r i nda B oy c e a nd K a t i na R obi ns on, w e r e S oc i a l S e r vi c e s C a s e M a na ge r s , orc a s e w or ke r s , i n the C hi l d P rot ec t i ve S ervi ce s ( “ C P S ”) Invest i gat i on s U ni tof D ekal b D F C S . B oyce w as em pl oyed fr om D ec em ber 200 2 u nt i l A pri l 9, 20 04 , w hen she w as t erm i nat ed for per form ance defi ci enci es . R ob i nson , hi re d i n M ay 20 03 , re m ai ns em pl oyed at D ekal b D F C S , bu tshe w as tr a n s f e r r e d o n M a r c h 1 , 2 0 0 5 , f r o m th e CPS I nve s t i ga t i ons U ni tt o the T e l e phone I nt a ke U ni tbe c a us e of he rde f i c i e nt3

p e r f o rm a n c e . D e f e n d a n ts - ap p e lla n ts w e r e in m a n a g e m e n t/s u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n s a t D e k a lb C o u n ty DF C S d u r i n g th e r e l e v a n tt i m e . De f e n d a n t - ap p e l l a n tGw e n d o l y n An d r e w, f o r me r l y a c a s e ma n a g e r , w a s p r o mo t e d t o So c i a l Se r v i c e s Su p e r v i s o rf o rCPS i nve s t i ga t i ons on D e c e m be r1, 2003. S he s upe r vi s e d B oy c e f orappr oxi m a t e l y f

our m on ths and R ob i nson for app roxi m at el y f i ft ee n m on ths. A nd re w as si gn ed ca se s a s w e l l a s m oni t or e d a nd s upe r vi s e d i nve s t i ga t i ons f orC P S . D e f

e nda nt - appe l l a nt K a the r i ne H e r r e n, a n e m pl oy e e of D H R , w a s a s s i gne d t o D e ka l b D F C S a s A c t i ng S oci al S ervi ce s D i re ct or. S he w as re spon si bl e f or adm i ni st er i ng the chi l d w el fa re pr ogr a m s , i de nt i f

y i ng pr obl e m s , a nd m a ki ng ne e de d c ha nge s . D e f e nda nt - appe l l a nt G l enda M cM i l l an w as em pl oyed atD ekal b D F C S as the S oci al S ervi ce s A dm i ni s tr a t or , buts he ha s notbe e n e m pl oy e d by D e ka l b D F C S s i nc e J une 30, 2 0 0 4 . W a l k e rSo l o mo n , I I , w a s th e D i r e c t o ro f D e k a l b D FCS. C P S i s the uni tof

D F C S tha ti s r e s pons i bl e f orm a ki ng the i ni t i a l c ont a c ta nd i nv es t i gat i on of al l egat i on s of c hi l d abu se or negl ec t . C as e m anagers ar e r equi re d t o r e s pond t o s uc h a l l e ga t i ons w i thi n tw e nty - f ourhour s orf

i ve da y s , de pe ndi ng on the nature of the al l egat i on . T here af t er , the C P S i nv es t i gat i on s c as e m anager as se ss es the envi ronm entand sub m i t s the ca se for c l osure w i thi n thi rty day s. In addi t i on t o the i ni t i al cont ac tw i th the fa m i l y a nd chi l d, the i nv es t i gat i on i ncl ud esIn his order, thedistrict judgedescribed this situation at Dekalb DF CS, whil e B oyce a nd 1 Rob ins on werec a semanag e rs :

Multipl e problems ex isted in CP S Investig ation during Boyce a nd Robinson’s tenure. Theunit was understa ffe d. Attrition was high. Ma

nag ement wa s in fluxand tempora ry employees ha

ndled much of thework. Child Welfare L eague of Americ a guidelines rec ommend that a ca se manag er c arr y between 12 and 15 c a se s at on etim e . In O c tob e r o f 2 00 3, Dekalb D F CS casemanag ers had an averag e of 30 to 35 c ases. In Dec ember of 2004, the averag e ca se manag er had 35 to 40 case s. Threechildren in DFCS died in 2002. Threemore died in 2003. In October of 20 03 , D HR

sent a te am of thre emanag e ment l e ve l e mpl oye e s to Dekalb DFCS, instructing them to identify and address exist ing prob le ms. R2-29 at 3. 4 a d d itio n a l n e c e s s a r y c o n ta c ts , a n d s u b m is s io n o f r e q u ir e d f

o r m s . A c a s e is consi dere d cl osed or t erm i nat ed w hen al l nece ss ary c on t ac t s have been com pl et ed a n d a l l r e q u i r e d f

o r ms s u b mi tt e d . I f

c o n t a c tn e e d e d t o b e ma i n t a i n e d o rD FCS n e e d e d to m o n ito rth e s itu a tio n , th e c a s e w a s r e f e r r e d to th e O n g o in g S e r v ic e s U n it of C P S , a di ff

er entun i tof D F C S . D uri ng 20 03 and 2 00 4, supervi sors expect ed c a s e m a na ge r s t o c l os e a tl e a s tf ourc a s e s a w e e k. F orthe pe r i od 2002- 2004, D F C S e xpe r i e nc e d di f f i c ul t i e s i n m a i nt a i ni ng c a s e l oa ds of

a l l of i t s c a s e m a na ge r s be c a us e of e xtr e m e l y hi gh c a s e l oa ds a nd turno ver i n em pl oyee s. T o add re ss the hi gh ca se l oads, D F C S ca se m anagers used 1 se vera l m etho ds. C as e m anagers w er e a l l ow ed t o “ com e off rot at i on , ” w hi ch m e a nttha tthe c a s e m a na ge rw a s s ki ppe d f ora ne w a s s i gnm e nti n the r ot a t i on5

w heel so thatthe ca se m anager w ou l d h ave a dd i t i on al t i m e t o cl ose hi s or her exi st i ng ca se l oad b ef

ore the as si gn m entof new ca se s. A dd i t i on al l y, ca se m anagers w ere g i v en o v ert i m e t o co m p l et e ad d i t i o n al w o rk o u t si d e n o rm al w o rk i n g h o u rs; t e m por a r y e m pl oy e e s w e r e hi r e d a nd a s s i gne d t o a s s i s tc a s e m a na ge r s ; va r i ous di ct at i on sy st em s w er e e m pl oyed t o ass i sti n fi nal i zi ng re po rt s; and em pl oyee s w e r e a s s i gne d t o the D e ka l b of f i c e f r om the s t a t e D F C S of

f i c e t o m oni t or c a s e lo a d s . B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n c o m p la in e d to th e irs u p e r v is o r s a b o u t th e s iz e o f th e ir c a s e lo a d s . P r im a r ily , th e s e c o m p la in ts w e r e e le c tr o n ic m a ils s e n t to th e ir s upe r vi s or s . B oy c e a nd R obi ns on a l s o us e d a n “ A s s i gnm e ntD e s pi t e O bj e c t i on” or

“ A D O ” f or m pr ovi de d by the i runi on t o a dvi s e a n e m pl oy e rw i thoutbe i ng i ns ubor di na t e of

the a m ountof

w or k tha tha d be e n a s s i gne d a nd t o not i f y the e m p lo y e rth a t it w a s to o m u c h to h a n d le . D u r in g 2 0 0 3 a n d 2 0 0 4 , B o y c e c o m p la in e d to h e rs u p e r v is o r s , m a n a g e m e n t, a nd he runi on tha the rc a s e l oa d of m or e tha n f

i f ty c a s e s w a s t oo hi gh. S he ga ve three A D O form s t o H erre n and M cM i l l an. F rom S ept em ber 200 3 u nt i l Ja nu ary 2 0 0 4 , B o y c e w a s a s k e d to c o m e o f f r o ta tio n s o th a t s h e c o u ld d e v o te m o r e tim e to in v e s tig a tin g a n d c lo s in g c a s e s . M a n a g e m e n t a ls o r e a s s ig n e d s o m e o f h e rc a s e s . D uri ng thi s t i m e, ho w ever , B oyce cl osed no ca se s, w hi ch she r epre se nt s w asAndrew, B oyce’ s direct supervisor, did not rec all that Boyce e xpresse d any concern for 2 th ew e l f areo f th ec h i l dr e nf

o r wh o ms h ew a s re s p o n s ib l e . An dre wD ep . at2 8 . S i m i l arl y, McMillan, the supervisor f or the investig ations unit and Boyce’ s intermediate supervisor, testified that B oyce “never verbaliz ed” to her that children were at risk beca use ca se manag ers were not g iven suffic ient time to investigatecase s. McMillan Dep. at 24. When Herren, the ActingSocial Service s Direc tor at Dekalb DF CS, was asked if B oyce discussed with her concerns about children’s lives beingput in dang er be causeof the c aseload manag ement, she responde d: “She did not discuss with me any concerns about child saf

ety .” Herren Dep. at 54 (empha sis added). Andrew testified that B oyce “ just basically

was not produc ing,”Andrew Dep. at 23, 3 “[a]pprox imately

80 perc ent” of

her c ases “were not beingsubmitt ed timely ,” id. at 26. McMillan testified that B oyce w as “de layed in produc ing thework,”and “there w as missing documentation from the rec ord to indicate what work w as done.”McMillan Dep. at 19. Herren 6 b e c a u s e s h e h a d to s p e n d m o r e tim e in c o u r t o n o th e ra s s ig n m e n ts . F r o m th e o u ts e t o f

h e rf o u rm o n th s o f

s u p e r v is io n , A n d r e w h a d d if f ic u lty w i th B oyce ’ s notbei ng abl e t o cl ose c as es . O n M ar ch 4, 20 04 , A nd re w as si gn ed he rf ourne w c a s e s . B oy c e r e tur ne d the c a s e f i l e s t o A ndr e w a nd t ol d he rtha ts he w o u l d n o tt a k e a n y n e w c a s e s . A n d r e w c o mp l a i n e d t o D e K a l b D FCS m a na ge m e nt , a nd B oy c e r e c e i ve d a r e pr i m a nd l e tt e rf r om S ol om on, t o w hi c h s he re spon ded b y al ett erchar ac t er i zi ng her e xchang e w i th A nd re w as a “ frustra t ed ou tbu rs t . ” B oyce D ep. at10 9. In desc ri bi ng her s tre ss and frustra t i on w i th h er h ig h c a s e lo a d , B o y c e s a id : “J u s t r e a lly o v e r w h e lm in g f e e lin g th a t y o u ’r e g o in g to w a k e u p a n d a c h ild ’s g o in g to b e in ju r e d o rd e a d a s a r e s u lt o f y o u n o t b e in g a b le to h e lp th a t f

a m ily , h e lp th a t c h ild .” I d . a t 8 4 . 2 M c M i l l a n pl a c e d B oy c e on a w or k pe r f or m a nc e pl a n w i th de a dl i ne s f or cl osi ng ou tfi fty- on e c as es thatw er e a tl ea stni nety day s overdue. B ec ause B oyce 3testified that B oyce’ s work wa s not satisfactory, and, as a n example, expl ained that shehad disagree d with Boyce’ s rec ommendation to continue a c ase f or long er tha

n 30 days. Herren Dep. at 46-47. Her

ren’ s concerns with Boyce’ s work as to her ca seload, whic h was c onsistent with other ca se manag ers, wa s her c ase ma nag ement g enerally

and her inability to meet deadlines a

nd close c ases. Id. at 49-50. The re commendation for Boyce’ s termination occur red a fter shehad been place d on a 4 work plan w ith “a number of discussions about [her] progress bef ore there w as a de cision made about termination.” Mc Millan Dep. at 22. “ Her perf ormanc e on her

work plan is what led to her termination.” I d. at 26. Dr. Olivia additionally

serve d in the capacity

of spec ial advocate to the Commiss ioner. 5 An dre w D ep. at 38 . And rew t e sti fi e d th at th eop e n me e tingwi th D r. Ol ivi a inc lude d “pra c tic ally ever y body in child welfa

re.”I d. 7 fa i l ed t o m ee tthe deadl i nes of herperf orm ance pl an, A nd re w and M cM i l l an re com m ended t o S ol om on thatshe be t erm i nat ed. T hey w er e a dv i se d thather 4 te r m in a tio n h a d b e e n ap p r o v e d b y th e s ta te o f f ic e o n A p r il 7 , 2 0 0 4 . Th e s a me d a y , D r . J a n e tO l i v i a , D i r e c t o ro f D FCS, v i s i t e d D e k a l b D FCS. 5 D ur i ng the m e e t i ng w i th D r . O l i vi a a nd the e nt i r e s t a f f , B oy c e a s ke d w he the rthe st at e had devel op ed a s ys t em t o al ertD H R w hen a cas e m anager had been as si gn ed t oo m a ny c a s e s ; w he the rthe G ove r nor ’ s of f i c e ha d i ns t i tut e d c e r t i f

i c a t i on r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rc a s e m a n g e r s ; a n d w h e th e rth e r e w e r e a n y c h e c k s a n d b a la n c e s in pl ac e a s t o the as si gn m entof ca se s bef ore acr i si s occ urre d, such as the death o f a c h ild . S h e a ls o s ta te d th a t la c k o f c o m m u n ic a tio n a n d lo w m o r a le c o n tr ib u te d to the de a ths of

c hi l dr e n i n D F C S c a r e , tha tge ne r a l l y c a s e m a na ge r s w e r e notge tt i ng h e lp , a n d th a t D e k a lb D F C S ap p e a r e d to b e in e f f e c tiv e . A ft er th e m eet i n g , B o yce w as n o t i fi ed o f h er d i sm i ssal . D efen d an t s-In sixof her ADOs, Robinson’s handwritten expl anation is identically worde d with the 6 only distinctions being the number of ca ses that she wa s handlingcontra sted with the rec ommended standa

rd of 15 by

the Child W elfa

re L eague of America

and the number

of ca ses in which she had been una ble to contac t the child: Iam cur rently at a da ng e rous ly high c a se load. Ihaverepe ate dly re qu e ste d h e lp with this si tuation; however Ihave not be en given enough time to process a nd investigate the ca ses on my enormously

high c aseload. Iam onceag ain making theag e nc y

awa reof thi s situatio n. Th e reare20 c a se s th at I haveno t be e n a

bleto make a ny ty pe of c ontact with the child. Robinson Dep. Exh. 7, Mar. 2, 2004 AD O (74 c ases) ; Feb. 23, 2004 ADO (66 c ases, 11 c ases with no child contact) ; Feb. 23, 2004 ( 65 case s, 10 case s with no child contact); F ebrua ry 20, 20 04 (6 4 c a se s, 9 c a se s w ithno c hil d c onta c t) ; F eb. 19 , 2 00 4 ( 63 c a se s, 9 c a se s w ithno c hil d contac t). Robinson’s six th ADO in the re cord ha s the followinghandwritten expl anation c on c e rningher 6 3 p e ndingc a se s: On Februar

y 10, 2004 Isent correspondenc e to my supervisor Gw en Andrews a nd so c ial serv ic e s adminis trator Gl e nda Mc Mil lan alertingthem th at my c a seload is currently extremely

high a nd Ihave not be en ableto make contact with 19 F amil ie s. Ihaveno w a

tot al of 13 c a se s in c ludingtheon ethat w a s a ssi gne d to me today that have not be en re sponded to. Iam re questingmore time off of 8 ap p el l an t s m ai n t ai n th ath er t erm i n at i o n h ad n o th i n g t o d o w i th h er o u t sp o k en n ess a tthe m e e t i ng, be c a us e A ndr e w a nd M c M i l l a n ha d pr e s e nt e d B oy c e ’ s l a c k of prod uct i vi ty t o p er sonn el before D r. O l i vi a’ s m ee t i ng w i th the D ekal b D F C S st af f, and h ert erm i nat i on had b ee n app roved p ri or t o the m ee t i ng . T he un di sput ed evi dence s ho w s thatH erre n w as no ti nv ol ved i n the deci si on t o t erm i nat e B oyce . R o b in s o n c o m p la in e d to h e rs u p e r v is o r s v e rb a lly a n d b y e le c tr o n ic m a il c onc e r ni ng he rbur de ns om e c a s e l oa d, m i s m a na ge m e nt , a nd c hi l d s a f e ty . S he s ubm i tt e d a tl e a s ts e ve n A D O s i n w hi c h s he obj e c t e d t o he rhi gh c a s e l oa d a nd re qu es t ed hel p. G ener al l y, R ob i nson ’ s w ork-re l at ed com pl ai nt s w er e thatshe w as 6rotation to attend to this issue and to work the other 50 case s and bringsome ty pe of closureto these ca ses that date back to October 2003. Iwas off rotation Feb 10, 2004-F eb 13; however that is not enough time to attend to t hefa mil ie s th at I

haveno t se e n a

nd c ontin ueto w or k o n all o ther c a se s o n my caseload. I

am onceag ain re questinghelp with this situation. I d. Feb. 17, 2004 ADO. 9 c ont i nuous l y r e c e i vi ng ne w c a s e s w i thoutpr oc e s s i ng the ol d c a s e s tha ts he ha d; s he w a s nota bl e t o m e e tr e s pons e t i m e s be c a us e of the c a s e l oa d; a nd, be c a us e s he w as i n cou rton ca se s, she w as no tadequat el y s up ervi se d; she had been subj ec t ed to s u p e r v is o r s w ith in c o n s is te n t m a n a g e m e n t s ty le s ; a n d s h e d id n o t w a n t to recei v e n ew cases b ecau se sh e w as u n co m fo rt ab l e w i th n o tb ei n g ab l e t o p ro cess th e c a s e s th a t s h e a lr e a d y h a d b e e n a s s ig n e d . R o b in s o n a ls o c o m p la in e d to M c M i l l a n tha the rc a s e l oa d w a s hi gh a nd tha ta l l of he rc a s e l oa d w a s not ac cura t el y r ef

l ec t ed on ca se m anagem entl i st s, al tho ug h she di d n otkn ow w hy they w er e notl i st ed. G ener al l y, she c on t ended t hather hi gh ca se l oad i m pact ed n e g a tiv e ly o n th e s a f

e ty o f c h ild r e n in c a r e o f

D e k a lb D F C S . R ob i nson ar gu es thatshe w as subj ec t ed t o ret al i at i on by her s up ervi sors at D ekal b D F C S because of r eport i ng her hi gh ca se l oad and m i sm anagem ent . W hen A nd re w m etw i th R ob i nson t o d i sc uss herca se s, they m eton e on o ne, w here as R obi ns on s t a t e s tha tA ndr e w m e tw i th othe rc a s e m a na ge r s a s a gr oup. R obi ns on f ur the rc ont e nds tha tA ndr e w ga ve he ri nc ons i s t e nti ns truc t i ons c onc e r ni ng m ee t i ng w i th fam i l i es . R ob i nson addi t i on al l y bel i eved thatthe del ay i n ass i st anceRob ins on ’sNo vember 2 3, 20 04 , e le c tronicmail t o H e rre n s tate s: 7 Due to ong oing disturba nces a nd abuse by

Ms. Andrew , Iam reque sting to be tra

nsfer red to a nother unit or depa

rtment. Iam re qu e stingtha

t th eag e nc y

a c c omm odatemy

re qu e st. R1-18 at Robinson Dep. Exh. 9. Herren forwa rded Robinson’s ele ctronic mail to Hart, who responde d to Robinson:

Irec eived a [n] email from you on 10/21/04 with the same reque st. Iadvised you at that time to present documenting of the disturbance s and abusecause [d] by Ms. Andrew . To date I

have not rec eived a

ny thing f rom you reg ardingMs. Andrew . Iam more than willing to address any issue you arehavingwith your supervisor. How ever , you must provide me with the documentation. 10 th a t s h e r e c e iv e d o n h e rc a s e lo a d w a s b e c a u s e o f h e rc o n v e r s a tio n w ith M c M illa n . R ob i nson al so re ce i ved a repri m and from M i l dred H art , the S oci al S ervi ce s A d m in is tr a to r , w h ic h S o lo m o n , a s D ir e c to ro f D e k a lb D F C S , la te rr e s c in d e d . R ob i nson ’ s O ct ob er20 04 perf orm ance eval uat i on st at ed thatshe di d n otm ee t e x p e c ta tio n s in o n e c a te g o r y . W h ile th e e v a lu a tio n w a s c h a n g e d s u b s e q u e n tly to s how tha ts he m e te xpe c t a t i ons , R obi ns on obj e c t e d t o the us e of w hi t e outt o m a ke the c or r e c t i on; R obi ns on ul t i m a t e l y r e c e i ve d a n e va l ua t i on of m e e t i ng e xpe c t a t i ons fo r th e p eri o d co v ered b y th e ev al u at i o n . R o b i n so n i n i t i al l y w as d en i ed h er req u est for e i gh ty hou rs of si ck l ea ve, w hi ch l at erw as approv ed af t ershe provi ded m edi ca l d o c u m e n ta tio n o f

h e rn e e d f

o rg a lls to n e s u r g e r y . O n O c t obe r21, 2004, a nd N ove m be r23, 2004, R obi ns on r e que s t e d tha ts he b e tr a n s f e r r e d t o a n o th e ru n i tb e c a u s e o f h e rd i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e a l i n g wi th An d r e w. 7I d. The district judg e also de scribed thesupervisor de fenda nts-appellants’ view of 8 Rob ins on ’swo rk

and c omp laint s: Def endants maintain that Robinson was unproduc tive, failed to return telephonecalls, and f ailed to appe ar f

or appointments. Defendants further contend that clients complained that Robin so n thre atene d toe lim inatethe ir fo od sta mp allo tments and in certain situations, to call police. De fenda nts state that they prov ide d Robin so n w ithre so urc e s, tim eof f rotatio n, thec ha

nc eto work over-time for

pay, and assisted with time and c aseload manag ement. De fenda

nts also removed 80 c ases f rom Robinson’s case load when Robinson re turned from sick leave . R2-29 at 13. Solomon was a defendant in the district court. Thedistrict judgegrante d him summ ary 9 judgment beca

use suit ag ainst him in hi s official capacity is a suit ag ainst the local g overnment entity , or Dekalb DF CS. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 S.Ct . 358, 361 (1991); Vineyard v. County of Murra y , Ga., 990 F .2d 1207, 1210 n.3 (11 Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Therefore, th Solomon i s no longer a pa rty in this case. 11 O n F e b ru a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , S o lo m o n n o tif ie d R o b in s o n th a t s h e w a s ap p r o v e d to tra nsfe r t o the T el epho ne Int ake U ni tef fe ct i ve M ar ch 1, 20 04 , al tho ug h h er re qu es t ed tra nsfe r r es ul t ed i n a fi ve perce ntre du ct i on of her m on thl y s al ary because of l osi ng the coun ty s up pl em entpai d t o em pl oyee s of C P S . T he re cord doe s nots how tha te i the rA ndr e w orH e r r e n w a s i nvol ve d di r e c t l y i n the de c i s i on t o tr a ns f e rR obi ns on, a nd he rtr a ns f e roc c ur r e d a f

t e rM c M i l l a n ha d l e f

tthe e mp l o y me n to f

D e k a l b D FCS. 8 Bo y c e a n d Ro b i n s o n f

i l e d a 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 3 a c t i o n a g a i n s tth e i rD FCS su p er v iso rs , A n d re w , M cM il lan , H er re n , an d S o lo m o n , an d alleg ed th at B o yc e’s 9In d e terminingthat B oyc eand Rob ins on

had spo ken c on c e rningiss ue s o f pub lic 10 concern, the district judg e conc luded that “the public ha s a stronginterest in knowingthat children c aught within the Dekalb DF CS sy stem arenot nece ssarily safe . The public also has an int e re st in k

no wingthat g ov e rnment o ff ic ials a retr yingto m akeit a

pp e ar t hat serv ic e s at D e kalb DFCS areimproving, when they arenot.” R2-29 at 20. As a r es u l to f B o yce an d Ro b i n s o n ’s al l ege d

p u b l i c- i nt er es ts p ee ch , th e d i s tri ctj u dge 11 de termine d th at th e ir

su perv iso rsretaliate d ag ains t th e m: Boyce a nd Robinson were strug g ling with ver y larg e ca seloads. Both plaintiffs told their super visors and others that they could not adequately

serveeach family

in their ca seload be causethey had toomany c a se s. Sub se qu e nt to a

nd c on c ur rent withtho se s t at em ent s , Bo yce an d

Ro b i n s o nwe re s u

b j ec tt o wh atth ey

al l ege to be manag ement’s ha

rassing , intimi dating , and retaliatory actions. Manag ement’s most salient ac tions ag ainst Robinson and Boyce a re thereprimand and ter

mination of Boyce a

nd the reprimand and tra

nsfer of Robinson. R2-29 at 17. 12 t erm i n at i o n an d R o b i n so n ’ s tran sfer w ere retal i at i o n fo r th ei r p ro t ect ed F i rst A m e ndm e nts pe e c h. I n a na l y z i ng de f e nda nt s ’ s um m a r y j udgm e ntm ot i on, the d is tr ic t ju d g e d e te r m in e d th a t B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n ’s c o n c e r n s o v e rc h ild s a f e ty bei ng sa cr i fi ce d b ec ause of thei r hi gh ca se l oads and m i sm anagem entprob l em s a t D e ka l b D F C S w e r e m a tt e r s of publ i c c onc e r n. H e a l s o c onc l ude d tha tB oy c e a nd 10 R obi ns on w e r e s ubj e c t e d t o a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons be c a us e the y s poke out on the s e m a tt e r s of

publ i c c onc e r n. T he di s tr i c tj udge c onc l ude d tha tB oy c e a nd 11 R o b in s o n w e r e w h is tle b lo w e r s a n d th a t d e f e n d a n ts h a d f

a irw a r n in g th a t th e ir a c t i ons c oul d s ubj e c tthe m t o l i a bi l i ty f ora l l e ge d vi ol a t i on of

a F i r s tA m e ndm e nt ri gh t . A cc ordi ng l y, he deni ed defendant s qual i fi ed i m m un i ty, w hi ch they13

c h a lle n g e o n in te r lo c u to r y ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Q u a lif

ie d I m m u n ity A n a ly s is “Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity a llo w s g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s to c a r r y o u t th e ir di s c r e t i ona r y dut i e s w i thoutf e a rof l i t i ga t i on, ‘ pr ot e c t i ng f

r om s ui ta l l butthe pl a i nl y i nc om pe t e ntorone w ho i s know i ngl y vi ol a t i ng the f e de r a l l a w . ’ ” M e r c a do v . C ity o f

O r la n d o , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 6 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A th gove r nm e nte m pl oy e e a c t e d w i thi n hi s orhe rdi s c r e t i ona r y a uthor i ty i f obj e c t i ve c i r c um s t a nc e s s how tha tthe c ha l l e nge d a c t i ons oc c ur r e d i n the pe r f or m a nc e of

the em p lo ye e’s d u ti es “an d w ith in th e s co p e o f th is au th o rity.” H il l v . D ek alb R eg ’l Y outh D e t . C tr . , 40 F . 3d 1176, 1185 n. 17 ( 11 C i r . 1994) . I n a na l y z i ng the th a f f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , w e us e a tw o- pa r ti nqui r y : ( 1) do the a l l e ge d f a c t s s how tha tthe gove r nm e nta c t orvi ol a t e d a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght ? a nd ( 2) w a s tha tc ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtc l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d? S a uc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 201, 121 S . C t . 2151, 2156 ( 2001) . “ T he r e l e va nt , di s pos i t i ve i nqui r y ” f or de t e r m i ni ng c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d l a w i s w he the ra r e a s ona bl e gove r nm e nt e m p lo y e e ’s c o n d u c t w a s c le a r ly u n la w f u l in th e s itu a tio n c o n f

r o n te d . I d . W h ile

“ [t ] he l aw i s c l ea rl y e st abl i shed thatan em pl oyerm ay no tdem ot e or di sc harge a publ i c e m pl oy e e f

ore nga gi ng i n pr ot e c t e d s pe e c h, ” T r a ve r s v. J one s , 323 F . 3d14

1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 5 ( 1 1 Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( c i t i n g Ra n k i n v . M c Ph e r s o n , 4 8 3 U . S. th 37 8, 38 3, 10 7 S . C t . 28 91 (198 7)), the th resh o ld i n q u i ry for dec i di ng i f qual i fi ed i m m u n i ty i s ap p ro p ri at e i s de te r m in in gu n de rF irs t A m e n dm e n t, g o v e r n m e n ts pe e c h law w he the rthe r e has be e n a c ons t i tut i onal v i olat i on by the gov e r nm e nt em p l o yer. B . F i rs tA m endm entInqu i ry G ove r nm e ntr e gul a t i on of e m pl oy e e s ’ s pe e c h di f

f e r s f r om i t s r e gul a t i on of the s pe e c h of

i t s c i t i z e nr y . C onni c k v. M y e r s , 461 U . S . 138, 140, 103 S . C t . 1684, 1 6 8 6 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; Pi c k e r i n g v . Bo a r d o f Ed u c . o f Tw p . H i g h Sc h . D i s t . 2 0 5 , 3 9 1 U . S. 5 6 3 , 5 6 8 , 8 8 S .C t. 1 7 3 1 , 1 7 3 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . A c tin g a s a n e m p lo y e r , th e g o v e r n m e n t is a f f or de d br oa d di s c r e t i on i n i t s e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i ons . J ohns on v. C l i f t on, 74 F . 3d 1087, 1092 ( 11 C i r . 1996) . F ora gove r nm e nte m pl oy e e ’ s s pe e c h t o ha ve th F i rs tA m endm entprot ec t i on , i tw as w el l se tt l ed by the S up re m e C ou rti n C on ni ck a nd P i c ke r i ng tha tthe e m pl oy e e m us tha ve ( 1) s poke n a s a c i t i z e n a nd ( 2) a ddr e s s e d m a tt e r s of

publ i c c onc e r n. F ol l ow i ng thi s “ di r e c t i ve , ” w e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tw e m us tde t e r m i ne “ w he the rthe s pe e c h a ti s s ue w a s m a de pri m ar i l y i n the em pl oyee ’ s r ol e a s c i t i ze n, or pri m ar i l y i n the rol e of e m pl oyee . ” K urt z v. V i ckre y, 85 5 F . 2d 72 3, 72 7 (11 C i r. 19 88 ). T he S up re m e C ou rthas th c l a r i f i e d a nd s i m pl i f

i e d thi s i nqui r y by hol di ng tha t“ w he n publ i c e m pl oy e e s m a ke15

st at em ent s pursuantt o thei r off i ci al du t i es , the em pl oyee s a re no tspea ki ng as c itiz e n s f o rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t p u rp o s e s , a n d th e C o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t in s u la te th e i rc o mmu n i c a t i o n s f

r o m e mp l o y e rd i s c i p l i n e . ” G a r c e tt i v . Ce b a l l o s , __ U . S.

__ , __ , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 6 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . I n Ga r c e tt i , a L o s An g e l e s C o u n ty d e p u ty d i s tr i c ta tt o r n e y wr o t e two di sposi t i on m em oranda rec om m endi ng di sm i ss al of the charges i n a ca se , i n w hi ch h is r e s e a r c h r e v e a le d th a t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t a f f id a v it c o n ta in e d m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s . A m ee t i ng i nv ol vi ng the depu ty di stri ctatt orney, hi s s up ervi sors , and em pl oyee s of the L os A nge l e s C ounty S he r i f f’ s D e pa r tm e nt , w hi c h a l l e ge dl y be c a m e he a t e d, w a s c onduc t e d t o di s c us s the s e a r c h w a r r a nta f f i da vi t . D e s pi t e the c onc e r ns e x p r e s s e d b y th e d e p u ty d is tr ic t a tto r n e y , th e d e c is io n w a s m a d e to p r o c e e d w ith the prosecut i on . H e w as ca l l ed by the defens e r egar di ng the al l eged m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons a tahe a r i ng, butthe tr i a l j udge r e j e c t e d the c ha l l e nge t o the s e a r c h w a r r a nt . T he de puty di s tr i c ta tt or ne y s ubs e que nt l y w a s tr a ns f e r r e d f r om h i s c a l e n d a rd e p u ty p o s i t i o n t o a tr i a l d e p u ty p o s i t i o n a ta n o th e rc o u r th o u s e . He s ue d unde r§ 1983 a nd a l l e ge d tha thi s c ha nge i n j ob a nd l oc a t i on w e r e r e t a l i a t i on f o rh is s p e e c h ; th e N in th C ir c u it a g r e e d , a n d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v e r s e d . G a r c e tt i i ns truc t s tha t“ [ t ] he pr ope ri nqui r y i s a pr a c t i c a l one . ” I d. a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1961. F oc us i ng on the “ c i t i z e n” a s pe c tof the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntFollowingPickering , our analysis of retaliation ag ainst an employee by a g overnment 12 e mpl oye r f

or alle g e d c on sti tution ally

prote c te d spe e c h h a s b e e n c omp ri se d o f f our p art s: To prevail under this analysis, an employee must show that: (1) the spe ech involved a matter of public c oncer

n; (2) the employee’ s fre e spee ch intere sts outweighe d the employer’ s int e re st in e ff

e c tiv eand

e ff ic ient f ulf illment o f its re sp on sib ili tie s; and (3 ) t hesp e e c h p laye d a

su bs tanti al pa

rt in t hea dv e rs e employ ment action. I f an employee satisfies her burden on the 16 a na l y s i s , the C our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe r e s e a r c h a nd m e m or a nda w e r e pa r tof the de puty di s tr i c ta tt or ne y ’ s of f i c i a l dut i e s . S i nc e hi s f

i ndi ngs a nd r e c om m e nda t i on w e r e “ pur s ua ntt o” hi s of f i c i a l dut i e s , he w a s nots pe a ki ng a s a c i t i z e n unde rthe F i rs tA m endm ent . Id. at__ , 12 6 S . C t . at19 60 . T he C ou rtdet erm i ned t hat

“ [r ] es tri ct i ng spee ch thatow es i t s e xi st ence t o a pu bl i c e m pl oyee ’ s profe ss i on al re spon si bi l i t i es do es no ti nfri ng e a ny l i bert i es the em pl oyee m i gh thave enj oyed as a pr i va t e c i t i z e n. I ts i m pl y r e f l e c t s the e xe r c i s e of

e m pl oy e rc ontr ol ove rw ha tthe e m p lo y e rits e lf

h a s c o m m is s io n e d o rc r e a te d .” I d . F ol l ow i ng G a r c e tt i , ourc i r c ui tha s m odi f i e d the a na l y s i s of

the f i r s ts t e p of th e P ic k e r in g te s t f

o ra n a ly z in g a lle g e d g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e rr e ta lia tio n to de t e r m i ne i f

a n e m pl oy e e ’ s s pe e c h ha s c ons t i tut i ona l pr ot e c t i on by de c i di ng a tthe o u ts e t ( 1 ) if

th e g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s p o k e a s a n e m p lo y e e o rc itiz e n a n d ( 2 ) if the spee ch address ed an i ss ue re l at i ng t o the m i ss i on of the go vernm entem pl oyer ora m a tt e rof

publ i c c onc e r n. D ’ A nge l o v. S c hool B d. of P ol k C ounty , F l a . , 497 F . 3d 12 03 , 12 09 (11 C i r. 20 07 ). T o q ual i fy as const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed spee ch th 12firs t thre esteps , [( 4) ] theburde n th e n s hif ts to th ee mpl oye r to show by a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e that it would have made the same de cision even in the a bsenceof the prote cted spe ech. Coo k v . Gwinn e tt County Sc h. Di st. , 4 14 F .3 d 1 31 3, 13 18 (1 1 Cir . 2 00 5) . Thefirs t tw o p art s th arequestions of law, a

nd the last two parts a

re que stions of fact. Id. 17 in th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y m e n t r e ta lia tio n c o n te x t th a t w a r r a n ts th e P i ck eri n g an al ysi s, as G arcet t i h as sp eci fi ed , th e sp eech m u stb e m ad e b y a gov e r nm e nt

e m pl oy e e s pe aki ng as a c i t i

z e n and be on a s ubj e c t of publ i c c onc e r n. S ee P hi l l i ps v. C i ty of D aw sonv i l l e, 49 9 F . 3d 12 39 , 12 42 (11 C i r. 20 07 ) ( per th curi am ) ( concl ud i ng i n a F i rs tA m endm ent , re t al i at i on ca se fol l ow i ng G ar ce tt i that the go vernm entem pl oyee “ w as spea ki ng i n acc ord w i th h erdu ty a s the C i ty C l erk a nd nota s a pr i va t e c i t i z e n” ) ; V i l a v. P a dr ón, 484 F . 3d 1334, 1339 ( 11 C i r . 2007) th ( a c know l e dgi ng a f

t e rG a r c e tt i tha t , t o a na l y z e a F i r s tA m e ndm e nt , r e t a l i a t i on cl ai m for s peec h b y ago vernm entem pl oyee , “ [t ] he thres ho l d q uest i on i s w hether [the go vernm entem pl oyee ] spok e a s aci t i ze n o n a m att erof pu bl i c c on ce rn”) ; M i l l s v. C i ty of

E va ns vi l l e , I nd. , 452 F . 3d 646, 647- 48 ( 7 C i r . 2006) ( r e c ogni z i ng th that“ [o] nl y w hen a go vernm entem pl oyerpenal i ze s s peec h thata pl ai nt i ff ut t er s

‘ a s a c i t i z e n’ m us tthe c our tc ons i de r ” the P i c ke r i ng a na l y s i s ) . I f the gove r nm e nt em p l o yee, h o w ev er, w as sp eak i n g as an em p l o yee, th en th ere can b e n o F i rst A m e ndm e nti s s ue , a nd the c ons t i tut i ona l i nqui r y e nds w i th no c ons i de r a t i on of the P i c ke r i ng t e s t . S e e M i l l s , 452 F . 3d a t647 ( “ G a r c e tt i . . . hol ds tha tbe f or e a s ki ng18

w he the rthe s ubj e c t - m a tt e rof pa r t i c ul a rs pe e c h i s a t opi c of publ i c c onc e r n, the courtm ustdeci de w hether the pl ai nt i ff w as spea ki ng ‘ as a c i t i ze n’ or as partof her publ i c j ob. ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) . T he r e f or e , “ [ t ] he P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e i s not tr ig g e r e d u n le s s it is f

ir s t d e te r m in e d th a t th e e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h is const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed. ” F erra rav. M i l l s, 78 1 F . 2d 15 08 , 15 13 -14 (11 C i r. th 1 9 8 6 ) . “A co u rt m u st th er ef

o re d isce rn th e p u rp o se o f th e e m p lo ye e’s spee ch— thati s, w hether s he spok e on b ehal f of the pu bl i c a s aci t i ze n, or w hether the e m pl oy e e s poke f

orhe r s e l f

a s a n e m pl oy e e . ” M or ga n v. F or d, 6 F . 3d 750, 754 ( 11 C i r . 1993) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I m por t a nt l y , “ the i nt e r e s t s of the [ gove r nm e nt th e m pl oy e e ] , a s a c i t i z e n, i n c om m e nt i ng upon m a tt e r s of publ i c c onc e r n” m us tbe ba l a nc e d w i th “ the i nt e r e s tof the S t a t e , a s a n e m pl oy e r , i n pr om ot i ng the e f f i c i e nc y of

the publ i c s e r vi c e s i tpe r f or m s thr ough i t s e m pl oy e e s . ” P i c ke r i ng, 391 U . S . a t568, 88 S . C t . a t1734- 35. T he r e f or e , “ i n the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt c o n te x t, c o u r ts r e v ie w r e s tr ic tio n s o n e m p lo y e e s ’ s p e e c h w ith g r e a te rd e f e r e n c e in order t o b al ance the go vernm entem pl oyer ’ s l egi t i m at e i nt er es t s i n i t s m i ss i on . ” E ngqui s tv. O r e gon D e p’ tof A gr i c . , 478 F . 3d 985, 995 ( 9 C i r . 2007) ( c i t i ng th G a r c e tt i , __ U . S . a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1960) . A c c or di ngl y , w e i ni t i a l l y m us tde c i de w h e th e rB o y c e a n d R o b in s o n s p o k e a s g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s o ra s c itiz e n s .19

D ec i di ng w hether ago vernm entem pl oyee ’ s s peec h rel at es t o h i s or herj ob as o p p o s e d t o a n i s s u e o f

p u b l i c c o n c e r n “ mu s tb e d e t e r mi n e d b y th e c o n t e n t , f o r m, a nd c ont e xtof

a gi ve n s t a t e m e nt , a s r e ve a l e d by the w hol e r e c or d. ” C onni c k, 161 U . S . a t147- 48, 103 S . C t . a t1690. A s c a s e m a n a g e r s f

o rD e k a lb D F C S , B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n ’s jo b w a s to in v e s tig a te th e c a s e s o f

c h ild r e n a lle g e d ly a t r is k a n d to m a k e r e c o m m e n d a tio n s to the i rs upe r vi s or s . B oth f a i l e d t o m e e tthe i rc a s e quot a s . I n the i rr e s pe c t i ve el ec troni c m ai l s t o sup ervi sors and u ni on A D O s, ea ch cl ai m ed t o b e overw orked a nd c om m e nt e d tha tc hi l dr e n c oul d be m i s tr e a t e d orc oul d di e be c a us e B oy c e a nd R ob i nson w er e unabl e t o h andl e a l l the ca se s a ss i gn ed t o them . O ther than m e n tio n in g th e s ix c h ild r e n th a t h a d d ie d p r e v io u s ly , a n d w h o a r e n o t a t is s u e in th is c a s e , n e ith e rs p e c if ic a lly id e n tif

ie s as in g le c h ild w h o w a s in d a n g e r . T he form and con t exti n w hi ch the com pl ai nt s by B oyd and R ob i nson w er e m ade a re i nd i ca t i ve of the fa ctthatthey i nt ended t o add re ss on l y m att er s c o n n e c t e d wi th th e i rj o b s a tDe k a l b DF C S . Ve rb a l , e l e c tr o n i c m a i l , a n d AD O c om pl a i nt s by B oy d a nd R obi ns on t o the i rs upe r vi s or s f oc us on the i rr e s pe c t i ve vi ew s thatthei r c as el oads w er e t oo hi gh , w hi ch caused ea ch no tt o m ee texpect ed d ead l i n es, an d th ei r co n seq u en tn eed fo r assi st an ce. R o b i n so n ’ s co m p l ai n t s, a l though m or e of

t e n i n a w r i tt e n f

or m a ta s al e tt e rorm e m or a ndum t o a20

s upe r vi s or , w e r e nots e ntt o a n out s i de e nt i ty , l i ke the t e a c he r ’ s l e tt e rt o a new spaperi n P i cker i ng , and d i d n otaddres s a ny subj ec tno tpers on al t o h er w or ki ng c ondi t i ons a tD e ka l b D F C S ; s he r e i t e r a t e d he rs a m e pe r s ona l i s s ue s a bout w h i ch sh e co m p l ai n s i n h er el ectro n i c m ai l co m m u n i cat i o n s w i th h er su p erv i so rs. W e ha ve de t e r m i ne d tha ta pol i c e r e por tge ne r a t e d i n the “ nor m a l c our s e of [ th e p la in tif

f’s ] d u tie s ” w a s n o t s p e e c h o n a m a tte ro f p u b lic c o n c e r n , a lth o u g h it c ont a i ne d i nf

or m a t i on unf

a vor a bl e t o the pol i c e de pa r tm e nt . M or r i s v. C r ow , 142 F . 3d 1379, 1382 ( 11 C i r . 1998) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . “ T he f a c ttha ts uc h i nf

or m a t i on th m a y be of

ge ne r a l i nt e r e s tt o the publ i c , how e ve r , doe s nota l one m a ke i tof

‘ pu bl i c c on ce rn’ for F i rs tA m endm entpu rposes . ” I d. at13 81 . “ T o p re sum e that al l m att er s w hi ch tra nspi re w i thi n a go vernm entoffi ce ar e of pub l i c c on ce rn w ou l d m ea n thatvi rtual l y e very re m ark— and cert ai nl y e very cr i t i ci sm di re ct ed at a publ i c of

f i c i a l

— w oul d pl a ntthe s e e d of a c ons t i tut i ona l c a s e . ” C onni c k, 461 U .S . a t 1 4 9 , 1 0 3 S .C t. a t 1 6 9 1 . B oy c e a ddi t i ona l l y r e l i e s on s t a t e m e nt s tha ts he m a de a tthe A pr i l 7, 2004, s ta f f m e e tin g a tte n d e d b y D e k a lb D F C S e m p lo y e e s a n d a s ta te s u p e r v is o r . S p e c if ic a lly , s h e a s k e d w h e th e rth e r e w a s a n y s y s te m in p la c e to a le r t th e s ta te of f i c e tha ta c a s e m a na ge rha d be e n a s s i gne d t oo m a ny c a s e s ; w he the rthe G ove r nor ’ s of

f i c e w a s goi ng t o r e qui r e tha tD F C S c a s e w or ke r s be c e r t i f i e d;21

w hether there w er e c hecks a nd bal ance s i n p l ac e r egar di ng as si gn m entof ca se s before acr i si s occ urre d, such as the death o f achi l d; and g ener al l y c om pl ai ned th a t n o o n e w a s h e lp in g c a s e m a n a g e r s w ith th e irc a s e s . T h e s e q u e s tio n s a s k e d in a n o p e n s ta f

f m e e tin g , lik e h e ro th e rc o m m u n ic a tio n s w ith h e rim m e d ia te s upe r vi s or s , c onc e r n he rpe r s ona l w or ki ng c ondi t i ons w i thoutr e f e r e nc e t o a ny part i cul arfa m i l y, chi l d, or ca se . S i gn i fi ca nt l y, thi s s peec h b y B oyce occurre d a f t e rs he ha d be e n r e pr i m a nde d a nd pl a c e d on a pe r f or m a nc e pl a n be c a us e of perf orm ance i ss ues r ai se d b y A nd re w , M cM i l l an, and S ol om on and aft erher di s m i s s a l ha d be e n r e c om m e nde d by A ndr e w a nd M c M i l l a n, a nd appr ove d by S ol om on . T here fore , her r em arks atthe m ee t i ng coul d n othave been an i ns t i ga t i ng f

a c t ori n the e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i ons of a ny of he rde f e nda nt supervi sors . A dd i t i on al l y, the un di sput ed evi dence i n the re cord i s thatH erre n w a s n o t in v o lv e d in B o y c e ’s d is m is s a l. A “ publ i c e m pl oy e e m a y nottr a ns f or m a pe r s ona l gr i e va nc e i nt o a m a tt e rof p u b lic c o n c e r n b y in v o k in g a s u p p o s e d p o p u la rin te r e s t in th e w a y p u b lic i ns t i tut i ons a r e run. ” F e r r a r a , 781 F . 2d a t1516. “ [ T ] he r e l e va nti nqui r y i s not w he the rthe publ i c w oul d be i nt e r e s t e d i n the t opi c of the s pe e c h a ti s s ue but r a the ri s ‘ w he the rthe purpos e of the [ the pl a i nt i f

f’ s ] s pe e c h w a s t o r a i s e i s s ue s of publ i c c onc e r n. ’ ” M a ggi o v. S i ppl e , 211 F . 3d 1346, 1353 ( 11 C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng th22

M or ga n, 6 F . 3d a t754) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ; s e e R e nf r oe v. K i r kpa tr i c k, 722 F . 2d 714, 715 ( 11 C i r . 1984) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ [ P ] l a i nt i f f’ s r e f e r e nc e t o the th s tu d e n ts ’ w e lf

a r e d u r in g h e ro r a l p r e s e n ta tio n to th e B o a r d is n o t s u f f ic ie n t to b r in g h e rg r ie v a n c e w ith in th e ru b r ic o f m a tte r s o f

‘p u b lic c o n c e r n .’” ) . T h e s a f e ty of c hi l dr e n unde rD e K a l b D F C S c a r e i s the i s s ue of pa r a m ounti m por t a nc e t o the purpos e of

the a ge nc y ; i ti s i nt e r tw i ne d w i th e a c h a c tof a c a s e m a na ge ra nd im p a c ts e v e r y a s p e c t o f th e p e r f o r m a n c e o f

a c a s e m a n a g e r ’s jo b . T h e r e c o r d in th is c a s e r e v e a ls th a t th e s p e e c h o f B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n , w h ile o s te n s ib ly i nt erm i ng l ed w i th i ss ues of c hi l d saf ety a nd D ekal b D F C S m i sm anagem ent , w as n o t in te n d e d to a d d r e s s m a tte r s o f p u b lic c o n c e r n f

r o m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

a c itiz e n . S e e W hi t e P l a i ns T ow i ng C orp. v. P a tt e r s on, 991 F . 2d 1049, 1059 ( 2d C i r . 1993) (r ec og ni zi ng that“ [e ] ven as t o an i ss ue thatcoul d arguabl y be vi ew ed as a m att er o f p u b lic c o n c e r n , if

th e e m p lo y e e h a s r a is e d th e is s u e s o le ly in o r d e rto f u r th e rh is o w n e m p lo y m e n t in te r e s t, h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts to c o m m e n t o n th a t is s u e is e n title d to little w e ig h t” ( c itin g C o n n ic k , 4 6 1 U .S . a t 1 5 4 , 1 0 3 S .C t. a t 1 6 9 4 ) ) . B oy c e a nd R obi ns on’ s s pe e c h a ddr e s s e d pe r s ona l gr i e va nc e s a nd frustra t i on s w i th thei r j ob s a s c as e m anagers atD ekal b D F C S , w hi ch they vi ew ed to b e th e r e s u lt o f

m is m a n a g e m e n t o f

in te r n a l a d m in is tr a tiv e a f f a ir s g e n e r a lly w ith n o s p e c if ic in c id e n ts o f

a lle g e d f

a ls e r e p o r tin g o rd o c u m e n ta tio n . “W h e n a p u b lic23

e m pl oy e e s pe a ks pur s ua ntt o e m pl oy m e ntr e s pons i bi l i t i e s , . . . the r e i s no r e l e va nt a na l ogue t o s pe e c h by c i t i z e ns w ho a r e notgove r nm e nte m pl oy e e s . ” G a r c e tt i , __ U . S . a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1961. “ O urr e s pons i bi l i ty i s t o e ns ur e tha tc i t i z e ns a r e not depri ved o f f

un dam ent al ri gh t s by vi rtue of w orki ng for the go vernm ent ; thi s does n o treq u i re a g ran to f i m m u n i ty fo r em p l o yee g ri ev an ces n o taffo rd ed b y th e F i rst A m e ndm e ntt o thos e w ho do notw or k f orthe S t a t e . ” C onni c k, 461 U . S . a t147, 1 0 3 S .C t. a t 1 6 9 0 . I m por t a nt l y , a s the C our the l d i n C onni c k, “ w he n a publ i c e m pl oy e e s pe a ks nota s a c i t i z e n upon m a tt e r s of publ i c c onc e r n, buti ns t e a d a s a n e m pl oy e e upon m att er s onl y of per sonal i nt er es t , abse ntthe m ostun usual ci rc um st ance s, a f eder al courti s notthe approp ri at e f orum i n w hi ch t o revi ew the w i sdom of a per sonn el d ec isio n tak en b y a p u b li c a g en cy alleg ed ly in re ac ti o n to th e e m p lo ye e’s be ha vi or . ” 461 U . S . a t147, 103 S . C t . a t1690 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; s e e V i l a , 484 F . 3d a t1339 ( “ W he n a publ i c e m pl oy e e s pe a ks a s a n e m pl oy e e on m a tt e r s of p erso n al i n t erestan d n o tas a ci t i zen u p o n m att ers o f p u b l i c co n cern , th e F i rst A m endm enti s noti m pl i ca t ed. ”) . G ov ernm entem pl oyer s have “ hei gh t ened i nt er es t s i n con trol l i ng spee ch m ade by a n em pl oyee i n h i s or herprofes si on al capaci ty, ” bec ause they “ m ustensure thatthei r e m pl oyee s’ offi ci al c om m uni c a t i ons a r e a c c ur a t e , de m ons tr a t e s ound j udgm e nt , a nd pr om ot e the24

em pl oyer ’ s m i ss i on . ” G ar ce tt i , __ U . S . at__ , 12 6 S . C t . at19 60 . In thi s c as e, B oyce and R ob i nson ’ s c om pl ai nt s a nd excuse s abo utthei r w orkl oads w er e c o n c e r n in g a n d d is ru p tiv e f o rth e irs u p e r v is o r s b e c a u s e th e m is s io n o f D e k a lb D F C S , to in v e s tig a te a n d m a k e r e c o m m e n d a tio n s c o n c e r n in g c h ild r e n r e p o r te d ly in d a n g e r , w a s n o t b e in g a c c o m p lis h e d . B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n ’s s u p e r v is o r s h a d m a d e s o m e a d ju s tm e n ts in th e ir r e s p e c tiv e w o r k lo a d s , b u t th o s e m e a s u r e s d id n o t r e s o lv e th e p r o b le m . W h e n it beca m e app ar entt o R ob i nson thatshe s t i l l coul d n otm ee ther c as e r evi ew qu ot a, she r equest ed a tra nsfe r, w hi ch w as grant ed by her s up ervi sors . B oyce ’ s w ri tt en and v erbal com pl ai nt s abo uther w orkl oad and the l ac k o f hel p, as w el l as her r e m a r ks e xpr e s s e d i n a n ope n s t a f f m e e t i ng, w e r e i n s t a r k c ontr a s tt o the m i s s i on of the D ekal b D F C S offi ce and con fi rm ed thather t erm i nat i on w as the corre ct de c i s i on. S e e C onni c k, 461 U . S . a t153, 103 S . C t . a t1693 ( “ ‘ W he n a gove r nm e nt em p lo ye e p er so n ally co n fr o n ts h is im m ed iate su p er io r, th e e m p lo yin g ag en cy ’s i ns t i tut i ona l e f

f i c i e nc y m a y be thr e a t e ne d notonl y by the c ont e ntof the e m p lo y e e ’s m e s s a g e b u t a ls o b y th e m a n n e r , tim e , a n d p la c e in w h ic h it is d e liv e r e d .’” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) . “[ T ]h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p r o h ib it m a n a g e r ia l d is c ip lin e b a s e d o n a n e m p lo y e e ’s e x p r e s s io n s m a d e p u r s u a n t to o f f i c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . ” G a r c e tt i , __ U . S. a t__ , 1 2 6 S. Ct . a t1 9 6 1 . Th e Su p r e meDuringthere le va nt time , D e kalb D F CS w a s e xpe ri e nc ingdif fi c ultie s in

ha ndlingits 13 on g oingc a se load f

or va ri ou s re a so ns . D e dic ate d g ov e rnment empl oye e s g e nerally wo rk wi th the ir su perv iso rsto g e t through s uc h time s a nd to m aint ain t

hewo rk rather t ha n w or kingag ains t them. The amount of time and eff ort that Boyce a

nd Robinson spent complaining a nd 14 re g ist e ringthe ir

pers on al w or

k gri e va nc e s w ould h avebe e n b e tter spent doingthe ir c a se 25 C ou rt ’ s dec i si on s i n the F i rs tA m endm entspee ch/ go vernm entem pl oym entar ea r e f l e c t“ the c om m on- s e ns e r e a l i z a t i on tha tgove r nm e ntof f i c e s c oul d notf

unc t i on i f e v e r y e mp l o y me n td e c i s i o n b e c a me a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l ma tt e r . ” Co n n i c k , 4 6 1 U . S. a t143, 103 S . C t . a t1688. C ons e que nt l y , “ gove r nm e ntof f i c i a l s s houl d e nj oy w i de la titu d e in m a n a g in g th e iro f f ic e s , w ith o u t in tru s iv e o v e r s ig h t b y th e ju d ic ia r y in th e n a m e o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t.” I d . a t 1 4 6 , 1 0 3 S .C t. a t 1 6 9 0 . S i gn i fi ca nt l y, B oyce and R ob i nson w er e c om pl ai ni ng t o thei r s up er i ors a s e m p lo y e e s a b o u t th e irw o r k lo a d s f o ra w o r k r e a s o n : th e y w a n te d to h a v e th e ir c a s e lo a d s r e d u c e d o rto r e c e iv e h e lp w ith th e irw o r k . T h e p u rp o s e o f th e ir gri evances cl ea rl y w as no tt o rai se pu bl i c a w ar enes s abo utchi l dren w i thi n the ca re of D ekal b D F C S . If

thathad b ee n thei r i nt ent i on , then t hey w ou l d h ave i dent i fi ed the chi l dren w ho w er e i n d anger. O ther D ekal b D F C S ca se m anagers supervi se d by the s a m e s upe r i or s dur i ng the r e l e va ntt i m e di d notj oi n i n B oy c e a nd R ob i nson ’ s § 19 83 ac t i on . T he re cord show s thatthi s w as an i nt ernal em pl oyee 13 m att erand t hatB oyce ’ s t erm i nat i on and R ob i nson ’ s tra nsfe r w er e i nt ernal de c i s i ons by the i rs upe r vi s or s t o a c c om pl i s h the w or k of D e ka l b D F C S . “ [ T ] he 14inv e sti g atio n jobs , which w ould h avere du c e d th elarg ec a se load h andle d b y theDekalb D F CS of fi c e . E ssenti ally, if

they wereno t perf

or mingthe ir

job s, then th e ir

su perviso rs , who sefo c us is on acc omplishi ngthe work of the offic e, nee ded to make ne cessa ry chang es to ac hieve the mission of Dekalb DF CS. 26 F i r s tA m e ndm e ntdoe s notr e qui r e a publ i c of f i c e t o be run a s a r oundt a bl e f or e m pl oy m e ntc om pl a i nt s ove ri nt e r na l of f i c e a f f a i r s . ” C onni c k, 461 U . S . a t149, 1 0 3 S .C t. a t 1 6 9 1 . B a s e d u p o n r e v ie w o f

th e e n tir e r e c o r d , B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n “p r im a r ily spok e” as em pl oyee s “ t o i m prov e [ thei r] w ork env i ronm ent ”; they r epre se ntthat th e y w e r e o v e r w o r k e d a n d o v e r w h e lm e d . M o r g a n , 6 F .3 d a t 7 5 5 . A s in G a r c e tti, the “ cont rol l i ng fa ct or” w as thatthei r e xp re ss i on s w er e m ade pursuantt o o ff i ci al dut i e s , i d. a t__, 126 S . C t . a t1959, a nd “ the m a i n thrus tof [ the i r ] s pe e c h t ook the fo rm o f a p ri v at e em p l o yee g ri ev an ce, ” M o rg an , 6 F . 3 d at7 5 5 . M o reo v er, B o yd and R ob i nson ’ s c as es nece ss ar i l y w er e r ea ss i gn ed t o o thers ; B oyce w as te r m in a te d , a n d R o b in s o n w a s tr a n s f e r r e d to a n o th e rD e k a lb D F C S u n it, T el epho ne Int ake, ather r equest . T here fore , other D ekal b D F C S em pl oyee s a s s u m e d th e irr e s p o n s ib ilitie s . B e c a u s e B o y c e a n d R o b in s o n s p o k e a s g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s a b o u t th e ir j obs a nd nota s c i t i z e ns , the y ha ve “ no F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc a us e of a c t i on ba s e d on [ the i r ] e m pl oy e r ’ s r e a c t i on t o the s pe e c h, ” a nd the r e i s no ne e d t o e nga ge i n theTo the extent that Boyce a nd Robinson characterize themselves as whistleblower s, a 15 “‘c ore c oncer

n’ of the F irst Amendment” f or those “who repor

t government wrong doing,”our F i r s tAm e n dm e ntan alys i s s h o w s th atth i s th e o r y o f re l i e f i s un av ai l i n g . Aki n s v . F u l t o nC o unty, Ga., 420 F .3d 1293, 1304 (11 Cir. 2005) (quotingBr yson v. City

of Waycross, 888 F .2d 1562, th 1566 (11 Cir. 1989)). In criticizing their superiors’ manag ement of theimportant work of

th Dekalb DFCS, Boyce a

nd Robinson have made alleg ations reg ardingonly Andrew, McMillan, and Herren’s ac ting a s supervisors in manag ing thecasework duringthe re levant time, but they have not demonstrated wrong doing or corr uption by these super

visors. In simil ar situations followingGarcetti of g overnment employees’ challeng ing the ir terminations bec ause they repor ted alleg ed wrong doing in g overnment office s, our cour t determined that commentary by g overnment employees c oncer ning alleg ed wrong doing in a g overnment officewas re lated to the g overnment employees’ jobs and, there fore , they were not speaking a s private c itiz ens for the purpose of

First Amendment, retaliation claims. S ee Phillips, 499 F.3d at 1241-43 (upholding summary judgment for the c ity

defendants ag ainst First Amendment, retaliation alleg ations by de c idingthat th eCity

Clerk , who sepo sition

g aveher c ontrol a

nd a c c ounta bil ity fo r c ity fu nd s, wa s ac tin gwi thin th esc op eof her d uti e s when s herepo rt e d th at th ema yor wa s im prop e rly charg ing thecity

for his per sonal expenses, and the City Clerk subsequently

was not re appointed b y th e C i ty C o un ci l ); Vi l a, 4 8 4 F. 3 d at1 3 3 9 (a ff

i rm i n g j u dgm entas a m att er o f l awfo r c o l l ege pre side nt o ver F ir st Amendment, retaliatio n c ha rg e s b y Vi c ePre side nt o f Exter

nal A ff air s, whose employ

ment contract was not renewe d followingher reports of illeg al and unethical conduct by

colleg e pre sident beca

use her alleg ations “fall squarely within her off

icial job duties and are not protec ted by

the Fir st Amendment” (c iting Ga rcetti, __ U.S. __, 126 S .Ct. at 1960)). 27 P ic k e r in g b a la n c in g a n a ly s is . G a r c e tti, _

_ U .S . a t _

_ , 1 2 6 S .C t. a t 1 9 5 8 . W ith 15 no const i tut i on al ri gh tup on w hi ch t o b as e B oyce and R ob i nson ’ s § 19 83 ca se , th e irD e k a lb D F C S s u p e r v is o r s , A n d r e w , M c M illa n , a n d H e r r e n , a r e e n title d to qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . S e e A nde r s on v. B urke C ounty , 239 F . 3d 1216, 1221 ( 11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per c uri am ) ( grant i ng qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty t o em pl oyerw here e m pl oy e e s a s s e r t e d i s s ue s of unde r s t a f

f i ng a nd pol i c i e s tha ta f

f e c t e d the ope r a t i on o f co u n ty 9 1 1 syst em ). B ecau se B o yce an d R o b i n so n h av e n o tsh o w n a F i rst A m en d m en t , ret al i at i o n cau se o f act i o n co n cern i n g th ei r su p erv i so rs fo r th ese em pl oyee s’ spee ch re gardi ng thei r j ob s, w e r ever se the deni al of qu al i fi ed28

im m u n ity to A n d r e w , M c M illa n , a n d H e r r e n . I I I . CONCL US I ON I n th is in te r lo c u to r y ap p e a l, g o v e r n m e n t s u p e r v is o rd e f e n d a n ts - ap p e lla n ts A nd re w , H erre n, and M cM i l l an have chal l enged t hei r bei ng deni ed qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty f

or the re spec t i ve t erm i nat i on and t ra nsfe r of pl ai nt i ff s- appel l ee s B oyce a nd R obi ns on, both of

w hom f or m e r l y w e r e c a s e m a na ge r s a tD e ka l b D F C S . T he di stri ctj ud ge deni ed qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty t o the supervi sors because he det erm i ned tha tB oy c e a nd R obi ns on’ s c om pl a i ni ng a boutthe i rc a s e l oa ds w a s a m a tt e rof pu bl i c c on ce rn, w hi ch af forded them F i rs tA m endm entprot ec t i on and t hat B o yce’ s t erm i n at i o n an d R o b i n so n ’ s tran sfer w ere retal i at i o n b y d efen d an t sappel l ant s. A s w e have expl ai ned, the F i rs tA m endm entdo es no tprot ec t g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s w h e n th e y s p e a k a s e m p lo y e e s a s o p p o s e d to c itiz e n s . B e c a us e the m a tt e r s di s c us s e d by B oy c e a nd R obi ns on w e r e i nt e r na l gove r nm e nt w o r k m a tte r s a t D e k a lb D F C S , A n d r e w , H e r r e n , a n d M c M illa n a r e e n title d to qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty. W e R EVER SE the de ni a l of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty by the di s tr i c tj udge a nd RE MAND f orthe di s tr i c tj udge t o gr a ntA ndr e w , H e r r e n, a nd M c M illa n q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity a n d to d is m is s th is c a s e a g a in s t th e m .P i c ke r i ng v. B oa r d of E duc . of T w p. H i gh S c h. D i s t . 205, 391 U . S . 563, 88 1 S . C t . 1731 ( 1968) . 29 B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g e, co n cu rri n g sp eci al l y: W h i l e I ag ree w i th th e resu l ti n th i s case, p u rsu an tt o G arcet t i v . C eb al l o s,

__ U . S . __ , 12 6 S . C t . 19 51 (200 6), I w ou l d i m pl em enta f i ve-part G a r c e tti/P ic k e r in g a n a ly s is in F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, r e ta lia tio n c a s e s in o u rc ir c u it. 1 G ar ce tt i nei ther overrul ed P i cker i ng no r i s i ta “ st and al on e” deci si on . E vi denced by the us e of

P i c ke r i ng a nd i t s s uc c e s s or s thr oughoutthe G a r c e tt i a na l y s i s , the C o u r t a u g m e n te d a n d c la r if ie d s te p o n e o f

th e P ic k e r in g c o n s titu tio n a l a n a ly s is . G ar ce tt i , __ U . S . at__ -__, 12 6 S . C t . at19 55 -62. T hati s, i n G ar ce tt i , the C ou rt h as i n stru ct ed l o w er fed eral co u rt s f i rst t o c l a s s i f

y orc a t e gor i z e the gove r nm e nt s p e a k e ra s a n e m p lo y e e o ra p r iv a te c itiz e n . I f th e g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e is s pe a ki ng a s a n e m pl oy e e , the n the r e i s no ne e d t o e nga ge i n the P i c ke r i ng const i tut i on al anal ys i s of dec i di ng w hether the go vernm entem pl oyee has s po ken as a c i t i ze n o n a m att erof pu bl i c c on ce rn. C on se qu ent l y, G ar ce tt i has gi ven l ow er f e d e r a l c o u r ts a d is tin c tio n in a n a ly s is th a t e x p e d ite s r e v ie w o f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, r e ta lia tio n c a s e s in v o lv in g g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e s . F ol l ow i ng G ar ce tt i , other c i rc ui t s have tra nsform ed thei r P i cker i ng four-part t es tfor det erm i ni ng w hether ago vernm entem pl oyerhas r et al i at ed agai nstan e m pl oy e e f

orc ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d s pe e c h i nt o a f i ve - pa r tt e s tora P i c ke r i ng30

s t e p one w i th tw o s ubpa r t s , w hi c h e xpe di t e s the a na l y s i s by de t e r m i ni ng a tthe o u ts e t w h e th e rth e p la in tif f is s p e a k in g a s a g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e e o ra s a p r iv a te c i t i z e n. T he T e nth C i r c ui tha s tr a ns i t i one d f r om the f our - pa r tP i c ke r i ng t e s tt o the fi ve-part“ G ar ce tt i / P i cker i ng ” t es t . B ra m m er -H oel t erv. T w i n P ea ks C hart er A c a d. , 492 F . 3d 1192, 1202- 03 & n. 4 ( 10 C i r . 2007) . U nde rthe th G ar ce tt i / P i cker i ng t es t , the f i rs t step i s j udi c i a l de t e rm i na t i on of “ w he the rthe e m p lo y e e s p e a k s ‘p u r s u a n t to [ h is ] o f f ic ia l d u tie s .’” I d . a t 1 2 0 2 ( q u o tin g G a r c e tti,

__ U . S . at__ , 12 6 S . C t . at19 60 ). “ If the em pl oyee spea ks pu rs uantt o h i s off i ci al du t i es , then t here i s no con st i tut i on al prot ec t i on because the re stri ct i on on spee ch

‘ si m pl y r ef

l ec t s the exerc i se of em pl oyercont rol ov erw hatthe em pl oyeri t se l f has com m i ss i on ed or cr ea t ed. ’ ” I d. (quo t i ng G ar ce tt i , __ U . S . at__ , 12 6 S . C t . at 1960) ; s e e R e ul a nd v. H y ne s , 460 F . 3d 409, 415 n. 5 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( f ol l ow i ng G a r c e tti, “ b ef

o re a n e m pl oy e e ’ s s pe e c h i s e nt i t l e d t o F i r s tA m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t i on, w e m ustal so det erm i ne thathe w as no tspea ki ng pu rs uantt o h i s dut i es as an em pl oyee ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed)) , ce rt . deni ed, __ U . S . __ , 12 8 S . C t . 11 9 (20 07 ). If the e m pl oy e e di d nots pe a k r e l a t i ve t o hi s of f i c i a l dut i e s buta s a c i t i z e n, the n the s e c ond pa r tof

the G a r c e tt i / P i c ke r i ng t e s tr e qui r e s j udi c i a l de t e r m i na t i on of

“ w hether the subj ec tof the spee ch i s am att erof pu bl i c c on ce rn. ” B ra m m er H oel t er , 49 2 F . 3d at12 02 . “ If the spee ch i s nota m att erof pu bl i c c on ce rn, then31

th e s p e e c h is u n p r o te c te d a n d th e in q u iry e n d s .” I d . a t 1 2 0 3 . O urs i s t e rc i r c ui t s c onc l ude d tha t , i n G a r c e tt i , the C our tde l i ne a t e d the anal ys i s of the fi rs tpartof a F i rs tA m endm ent , re t al i at i on ca se un der the four-part t e s tby di vi di ng i ti nt o tw o pa r t s . I ns t e a d of P i c ke r i ng s t e p one , w hi c h w a s the de t e r m i na t i on of

w he the rthe gove r nm e nte m pl oy e e ’ s s pe e c h w a s a m a tt e rof p u b lic c o n c e r n , u n d e rth e G a r c e tti/P ic k e r in g te s t, th e f ir s t ju d ic ia l d e te r m in a tio n is th e c la s s if

ic a tio n o rc a te g o r y o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t s p e a k e r : e m p lo y e e o rc itiz e n . D ec i di ng i f the go vernm entem pl oyee spok e a s a n em pl oyee nece ss ar i l y i nv ol ves d e te r m in in g th e jo b r e s p o n s ib ilitie s o f th e e m p lo y e e w h ic h th e n p e r m its c o r r e la tin g th e s p e e c h to th e e m p lo y e e ’s jo b r e q u ir e m e n ts . T h is d e te r m in a tio n is s e p a r a te f r om pr ogr e s s i ng t o P i c ke r i ng s t e p one : a de t e r m i na t i on of w he the rthe s p e e c h c o n c e r n s a m a tte ro f p u b lic in te r e s t. T h e r e f o r e , th e P ic k e r in g s te p o n e is n o t a u n ita r y d e te r m in a tio n th a t in c o rp o r a te s th e m o r e d e f in itiv e G a r c e tti a n a ly s is off i rst c or r e l a t i ng a gove r nm e nte m pl oy e e ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i on w i th hi s orhe rj ob r e s pons i bi l i t i e s . O nl y i f the gove r nm e nts pe a ke ri s s pe a ki ng a s a c i t i z e n doe s the a na l y s i s pr ogr e s s t o a j udi c i a l de t e r m i na t i on of w he the rthe s ubj e c ti s a m a tt e rof pu bl i c c on ce rn. If

the go vernm entem pl oyee , ho w ever , w as spea ki ng as an em pl oyee , then t here i s no F i rs tA m endm enti ss ue, and t he const i tut i on al i nq ui ry e nds . S e e F e r r a r a v. M i l l s , 781 F . 2d 1508, 1513- 14 ( 11 C i r . 1986) ( r e c ogni z i ng th32

thatthe P i cker i ng bal ance i s unn ec es sa ry un l es s aj ud i ci al det erm i nat i on has bee n m ade thatthe em pl oyee ’ s s peec h h as const i tut i on al prot ec t i on ). J udge E a s t e rbr ook ha s c om m e nt e d on the l ogi c of thi s r a t i ona l e f

orthe a dj us tm e nti n a na l y s i s f orF i r s tA m e ndm e nt , r e t a l i a t i on c a s e s by gove r nm e nt em p l o yees: G a r c e tti . . . h o ld s th a t b ef o re a s k in g w h e th e rth e s u b je c tm att erof part i cul arspee ch i s at op i c of pub l i c c on ce rn, the court m ustdeci de w hether the pl ai nt i ff w as spea ki ng “ as a c i t i ze n” or as partof her pub l i c j ob . O nl y w hen g ov ernm entpenal i ze s s peec h that a pl a i nt i f f utt e r s “ a s a c i t i z e n” m us tthe c our tc ons i de rthe ba l a nc e of publ i c a nd pr i va t e i nt e r e s t s , a l ong w i th othe rque s t i ons pos e d by P ic k e r in g a n d its s u c c e s s o r s . . . . M i l l s v. C i ty of

E va ns vi l l e , I nd. , 452 F . 3d 646, 647- 48 ( 7 C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng th W a t e r s v. C hur c hi l l , 511 U . S . 661, 114 S . C t . 1878 ( 1994) ; C onni c k v. M y e r s , 461 U . S . 138, 103 S . C t . 1684 ( 1983) ; G i vha n v. W e s t e rL i ne C ons ol . S c h. D i s t . , 439 U . S . 41 0, 99 S . C t . 69 3 (19 79 )) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T he ef fi ci ency for j ud i ci al a n a ly s is is th a t o n ly w h e n a g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e rp e n a liz e s s p e e c h th a t a e m pl oy e e “ utt e r s ‘ a s a c i t i z e n’ m us tthe c our tc ons i de rthe ba l a nc e of publ i c a nd p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s ”

— th e P i c k e r i n g a n a l y s i s . Mi l l s , 4 5 2 F . 3 d a t6 4 8 . I n d e e d , we have rec og ni ze d the changed anal ys i s i m pl em ent ed by ot her c i rc ui t s a nd “ re fi ned oura na l y s i s of

the f i r s ts t e p of

the P i c ke r i ng t e s t . ” D ’ A nge l o v. S c hool B d. of P o l k C o u n ty, F l a. , 4 9 7 F . 3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 9 (1 1 C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). C o n seq u en t l y, ci rcu i t s, th33

l i k e o u rs, th ath av e n o td efi n i t i v el y ch an g ed t o a fi v e-st ep G arcet t i / P i ck eri n g t est fo l l o w i n g G arcet t i n o n eth el ess actu al l y en g ag e i n th i s fi v e-st ep an al ysi s, b ecau se w e d iv id e th e f

ir s t s te p o f

th e P ic k e r in g te s t in to tw o s u b p a r ts . I d . I n G a r c e tt i , the C our tha s bui l tupon P i c ke r i ng a nd s uc c e e di ng c a s e s t o gi ve l o w er fed eral co u rt s a d i st i n ct i o n i n an al ysi s th atex p ed i t es rev i ew o f F i rst A m en d m en t , ret al i at i o n cases i n v o l v i n g g o v ern m en tem p l o yees b y f i rst e xa m i ni ng th e em p l o yee' s cl assi fi cat i o n . T h i s ex p ed i t ed an al ysi s h as b een reco g n i zed atl east by thr e e c i r c ui t s pos t - G a r c e tt i . S e e B r a m m e r - H oe l t e r, 492 F . 3d a t1202- 03 (T enth C i rc ui t ); R eul and, 46 0 F . 3d at41 5 n . 5 (S ec on d C i rc ui t ); M i l l s, 45 2 F . 3d at 647- 48 ( S e ve nth C i r c ui t ) . O urc i r c ui ti s us i ng the e xpe di t e d a na l y s i s f ol l ow i ng G arcet t i w i th o u tci t i n g P i ck eri n g as i f G arcet t i i s an i n d ep en d en td eci si o n i n F i rst A m e ndm e nt , r e t a l i a t i on c a s e s i nvol vi ng gove r nm e nte m pl oy e e s . S e e P hi l l i ps v. Ci ty o f D a w s o n v i l l e , 4 9 9 F. 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 2 ( 1 1 Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) th ( c onc l udi ng i n a F i r s tA m e ndm e nt , r e t a l i a t i on c a s e f ol l ow i ng G a r c e tt i tha tthe go vernm entem pl oyee “ w as spea ki ng i n acc ord w i th h erdu ty a s the C i ty C l erk a nd nota s a pr i va t e c i t i z e n” w i thoutc i t i ng P i c ke r i ng orus i ng i t s a na l y s i s ) ; V i l a v. P a d r ó n , 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 9 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( a c k n o w le d g in g a f te rG a r c e tti th a t, th t o a na l y z e a F i r s tA m e ndm e nt , r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m f ors pe e c h by a gove r nm e nt e m pl oy e e , “ [ t ] he thr e s hol d que s t i on i s w he the r[ the gove r nm e nte m pl oy e e ] s poke34

a s a c i t i z e n on a m a tt e rof publ i c c onc e r n” w i thoute nga gi ng i n the P i c ke r i ng a n a ly s is o rc itin g th e c a s e ) . T h is is n o t th e C o u r t's r e a s o n in g o rin s tru c tio n in G a r c e tti. T he ut i l i ty of the G ar ce tt i / P i cker i ng anal ys i s i s e vi denti n o ur ca se s s i nce G a r c e tti, w h ic h , lik e th is c a s e , s h o w th e p r e v a le n c e o f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, re t al i at i on ca se s i nv ol vi ng go venm entem pl oyee s s peaki ng as em pl oyee s a s oppos e d t o c i t i z e ns s pe a ki ng on i s s ue s of publ i c i nt e r e s t . S e e , e . g. , P hi l l i ps , 499 F. 3 d 1 2 3 9 ; D ’ A n g e l o , 4 9 7 F. 3 d 1 2 0 3 ; V i l a , 4 8 4 F. 3 d 1 3 3 4 . Be c a u s e th e Su p r e me C ou rthas gi ven u s a n exp edi t ed anal ys i s i n G ar ce tt i for these ca se s thatother c ir c u its h a v e a d o p te d a n d w e a r e u s in g w ith o u t a c k n o w le d g in g , I w o u ld im p le m e n t th e f

iv e - p a r t G a r c e tti/P ic k e r in g a n a ly s is in o u rc ir c u it.