Knudsen

MEMORANDUM **

The Estate of Philip S. Knudsen appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees in this 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

“The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Qwest Commc’ns v. City of Berkeley, 433 F.3d 1253 , 1256 (9th Cir.2006). To demonstrate unlawful retaliation, the Estate must show: “(1) that the conduct at issue is constitutionally protected, and (2) that it was a substantial or motivating factor in the [punishment].” Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2001) (as amended) (quoting Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 675 , 116 S.Ct. 2361 , 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996)). If that showing is made, the Defendants “can escape liability by showing that [they] would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Id. Defendants concede that the conduct at issue here was constitutionally protected speech.

Thus, only the highly fact-specific inquiry into the causal linkage between Knudsen’s speech and his firing…