Rexwinkel

MEMORANDUM *

Linda Rexwinkel appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Family Medical Leave Act ( 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.) claims by the district court. Rexwinkel argues that her supervisors at the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles retaliated against her for making two statements protected by the First Amendment. In order to establish a § 1983 retaliation claim, an employee must allege: (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 action. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003). First, Rexwinkel claims that she complained to her supervisors that she had been wrongly downgrad *700 ed and that the demotion “is in essence a falsehood” that is a matter of public concern. This statement is merely a workplace grievance and not a matter of public interest. It cannot be the basis for a First Amendment claim. See Havekost v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 925 F.2d 316, 318-19 (9th Cir.1991).

Second, Rexwinkel argues that she complained to her supervisors about a secret, personnel file on the DMV’s…