Molina

MEMORANDUM *

1. The district court erred in concluding that Molina’s speech was not constitutionally protected. Molina’s statements were not mere “employee grievanee[s]” related to “personnel and internal affairs.” Cf. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 151, 154 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, they raised the possibility that some council members engineered a “sweetheart deal” with favored contractors at taxpayers’ expense. The statements addressed “matters of public concern” and were thus entitled to “special protection.” Id. at 145 ; Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 574-75 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.3d 811 (1968). That Molina might have been speaking at times as an at-will employee during closed council meetings, and not as a citizen in a public forum, does not alter our conclusion. See Givhan v. W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 414 , 99 S.Ct. 693 , 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977).

2. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party on a motion for summary judgment, we cannot agree that the…