Court Opinion

ID: 9497895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:03:02.144894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:29.400844
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that McElroy’s complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to describe the retaliatory conduct more particularly.
Respectfully, however, I do not agree that it should be dismissed because the speech which allegedly caused the retaliation was not a matter of public concern and therefore not protected.
It seems clear that a group of prisoners, not just McElroy individually, were left unemployed by the closing of the sewing shop. All these would have an interest in receiving lay-in pay while unemployed. McElroy’s question would surely concern that “public” and the general public would be concerned with the policy of compensating prisoners for whom there is no work.