Harding

MEMORANDUM **

Nina Harding contends that Defendants-Appellees violated her First Amendment rights when they failed to act in response to her complaints that a jail education program provided unequal educational opportunities. She also claims that the suspension of the program, her resulting loss of employment as a part-time instructor, and her failure to be rehired for the new program constitute adverse employment actions sufficient to support her First Amendment claim. The district court conducted a bench trial on her First Amendment claim and granted summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees on her other claims. Harding only appeals the First Amendment claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Throughout Harding’s employment as a part-time instructor she was outspoken in her views on the college’s policies affecting part-time faculty and the rights of inmates to receive education. Although these views touch on matters of public concern, she suffered no adverse employment action by her supervisors’ silence or failure to respond to her criticisms. See Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 874-75 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that “plaintiff must show, in…