that became vacant in 2000. Similarly, the interviewers in 2001 unanimously concluded that Perry was the most qualified candidate of those interviewed. This evidence strongly suggests that Miller’s assertion that Perry would not be a good senior court clerk was pretextual. Miller also gave a patently illegitimate reason for not promoting Perry to the senior court clerk position. At one point, Miller told Thomas tha ler that she believed Miller was unlawfully retaliating against Perry, an employee need not expressly accuse her supervisor or employer of illegal activity. Rather, she may convey an implicit message of disapproval of the illegality of the activity through her conduct by refusing to facilitate or participate in it. See Nunez v. Davis, 169 F.3d 1222, 1227-28 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The question then is whether Thomas’ actions
holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern holding that an employees refusal to limit attendees at training seminars to those court employees who had worked on her supervisors reelection campaign was expressive conduct on a matter of public concern holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding that a public employees expressive conduct in support of a coworker in her personnel dispute was a matter of public concern because it helped expose potential government misconduct