third elements of the prima facie case. Thus, we consider only the first element of Thomas’ prima facie case—the public concern test. In determining whether Thomas’ speech in support of Perry’s promotion meets this threshold, we consider the “content, form, and context” of her speech. Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684; see Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 978. A. Content The district court concluded that Thomas’ support of Perry for the promotion was not a matter of public concern because her speech was about a personnel matter. However, the type of personnel matters that we have deemed unprotected under the public concern test are employment grievances in which the employee is complaining about her own job treatment, not personnel matters pertaining to others. See Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 978 (<HOLDING>); Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1138 (9th
recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding that falsification of information in a search warrant affidavit was a matter of public concern holding that a doctors protest against the laying off of other physicians was of public concern holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters 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