reaction to the employee’s behavior.” Id. (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684). Second, courts must weigh the strength of the employee’s and the public’s First Amendment interests against the government’s interest in the efficient administration of the workplace. Mullin v. Town of Fairhaven, 284 F.3d 31, 37-38 (1st Cir.2002); Tang, 163 F.3d at 12 (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731). Third, if the employee’s and the public’s interests outweigh a legitimate government interest in restricting the employee’s speech, the employee must show that the protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action. Mihos, 358 F.3d at 102 (citations omitted) the extent Putnam’s First Amendment claim t, 335 F.3d 1, 11-12 n. 10 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); O’Connor, 994 F.2d at 916 (citing Givhan v.
holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern holding that law enforcement agents speech which raised the possibility of corruption in a public agency is protected under the first amendment recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern