Pena

*667 MEMORANDUM **

Dr. Van A. Pena (“Pena”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Judith Bjorndal (“Bjorndal”). Pena argues that there were material disputed facts which precluded the grant of summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist, 237 F.3d 1026 , 1029 (9th Cir.2001).

To bring a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment Pena must demonstrate (1) that he engaged in protected speech; (2) that his employer took adverse employment action; and (3) that his speech was a “substantial or motivating” factor behind the adverse employment action. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675 , 116 S.Ct. 2342 , 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996); Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003). At issue here is whether Pena’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to terminate him.

We have recognized at least three ways a plaintiff may demonstrate, through circumstantial evidence, that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse employment action. Plaintiff may…