government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.’ ” Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d at 1071 (quoting Garcetti v. Cebados, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006)). The Mt. Healthy mixed-motive analysis provides that the government may “avoid liability by showing that the employee’s protected speech was not a but-for cause of the adverse employment action” and that it “would have reached the same decision even in the absence of the [employee’s] protected conduct ... if [a] proper reason alone had existed.” Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d at 1072 (citations and quotations omitted). See also Allen v. Iranon, 283 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Gillette v. Delmore, 886 F.2d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1989)) (<HOLDING>). A. Curtis Hazell’s Motion for Summary
holding that a defendant must demonstrate that it would have taken the adverse action absent the protected speech and not simply that it justifiably could have holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error holding that the employer can avail itself of a limited affirmative defense that restricts the available remedies if it demonstrates that it would have taken the same action absent the impermissible but for causation holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected holding that it is not