answer is yes, the court must “move to the second part of the test, questioning ‘whether the relevant government entity has an adequate justification for treating the employee different ly from any other member of the general public.’ ” Healy, 2006 WL 3457702, at *4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86344, at *12 (quoting Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951). This requires the court to arrive “at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731 (commonly referred to as the “Pickering balancing test”); see also McEvoy v. Spencer, 124 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). This, too, is an issue of law for the court
holding that the ultimate question is whether the employees right to speak is outweighed by the public employers interest in the effective operation of the workplace recognizing that the question of whether the interest of justice is served by the transfer of a juvenile for adult prosecution is a decision within the broad discretion of the district court holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction