Ryan-Byrne

MEMORANDUM *

Angela Ryan-Byrne challenges her termination by the City of Pacific on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The district court granted Pacific’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

Ryan-Byrne claims that Pacific’s termination was improperly motivated by her protected speech. We agree with her that her speech involved a matter of public concern. See Roe v. San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 585 (9th Cir.1997). Nevertheless, the district court properly analyzed all the relevant factors with respect to the balancing of interests, see Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 867-68 (9th Cir.1999), and Ryan-Byrne’s termination was justified by the city’s interest in maintaining efficiency and avoiding disruption.

Ryan-Byrne argues that in a whistle-blowing context, the city “must do more than show mere disruption; instead it must show actual injury to its legitimate interests.” Hufford v. McEnaney, 249 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir.2001). Here, it has. Ryan-Byrne not only ignored Pacific’s whistleblowing policy; she went beyond her chain-of-command and unnecessarily involved city council members in the city’s executive affairs. Summary judgment was appropriate on…