Opinion ID: 171611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Undisputed Issues

Text: The first, fourth, and fifth elements of the Garcetti/Pickering test are not challenged by the appellant. The OBVME and Ms. Kirkpatrick conceded below that it was not a part of [Ms. Dixon's] duties to opine on the used [sic] of OBVME funds in investigations or discuss ongoing investigations. The first element of the test, which was added by Garcetti, is therefore deemed satisfied for purposes of this appeal. Ms. Kirkpatrick devotes many pages of her appellate brief to summarizing facts in the record regarding Ms. Dixon's allegedly poor work performance. Appellant's Br. 4, 5-6, 19. According to the appellant, as a result of Ms. Dixon's belief that OBVME should not have become involved in the dogfighting investigation, Ms. Dixon intentionally performed lower quality work and became uncooperative and disruptive. These facts might well justify the plaintiff's termination under the fourth or fifth element in the test, but the defendants did not argue this either in support of their summary judgment motion in district court or in the legal argument section of their brief in this court. For purposes of this appeal, therefore, we will assume that Ms. Dixon was terminated because of her speech.