U.S. 138, 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). We have held that no First Amendment protection attaches to speech that — for personal benefit — exposes personally suffered harassment or discrimination. See, e.g., Morgan, 6 F.3d at 754-55 (collecting eases). In the present case, however, Tindal’s speech took place in a public forum (a federal district court proceeding), not in a private context; it also supported the discrimination and harassment claims of other individuals, not of Tin-dal herself (as Tindal was not a plaintiff and could not recover damages if the suit succeeded). Tindal’s testimony, therefore, did not constitute an employee grievance motivated merely “by her ... rational self-interest in improving the conditions of her employment.” Morgan, 6 F.3d at 755 (<HOLDING>). Instead, Tindal’s testimony on behalf of her
holding that the complaints of a public employee about a reorganization plan were on a matter of public concern even though the employee was primarily motivated by the adverse effect of the plan on himself holding that a teachers accusations of sexual harassment and poor job performance by a principal involved matters of public concern holding employer may be hable for sexual harassment of employee by independent contractor holding that statement challenging sexual harassment determined to be employee grievance driven by selfinterest was not 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