Allen
Allen v. City of Boulder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Dean Allen appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Boulder City and his supervisors John Sullard and Bob Kenney. Allen claims that defendants violated his First Amendment rights when they suspended him and later fired him after he aired his concerns regarding the City’s implementation of computer training in preparation for the transition to the year 2000 with two city eouncilmen.
To establish a § 1983 retaliation claim, an employee must show: 1) that he or she engaged in protected speech; 2) that the employer took adverse employment action against the employee; and 3) that the speech was a “substantial or motivating factor” for the adverse employment action. See Coszalter v. Salem, 320 F.3d 968 , 973 (9th Cir.2003). Allen’s claim fails.
An employee’s speech is “protected” under the First Amendment only if it addresses an issue of legitimate public con *980 cern. Id. Courts consider the “content, form, and context,” of speech in determining whether statements constitute a matter of public interest. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). If an employee speaks only…