Terhune

MEMORANDUM **

Salem filed a First Amendment employment retaliation suit. To prevail on such a claim, he must show that he engaged in a protected activity, that his employer took adverse employment actions against him, and that his protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse employment actions. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th *672 Cir.2003). *** The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

In early 1999, Salem complained to Cal-OSHA about safety conditions at the prison where he worked. In Coszalter , we held that complaints to state OSHA agencies can be protected speech. See id. at 974 . California has not submitted any evidence to show that Salem’s complaint to Cal-OSHA should not be considered protected speech.

Salem has alleged that his employers took many adverse employment actions against him. Some of these alleged actions took place more than one year before he filed his suit and are therefore time-barred. Because the alleged actions are discrete acts of retaliation, he cannot avail himself of any “continuing violations” theory to pursue otherwise time-barred claims. See National R.R. Passenger Corp.…