1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) (letter criticizing school board budgetary policies was published involved a matter of public concern and employer’s interests did not outweigh teacher’s first amendment rights; therefore, discharge was illegal); Marshall v. Allen, 984 F.2d 787, 796 (7th Cir.1993)(“Cases decided by this court and the Supreme Court ... clearly establish that speech of this type, which protests conditions in a public agency and does not solely promote the plaintiff’s own interests, addresses a matter of public concern and enjoys First Amendment protection.”) (citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S.Ct. at 1691; Knapp v. Whitaker, 757 F.2d 827, 840-42 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 803, 106 S.Ct. 36, 88 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985); Gorman v. Robinson, 977 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>)) ii. Ryan’s Communication with the Press In
holding that communications with the fbi were protected under the first amendment because prior to 1986 the law was clear that an employer may not retaliate against an employee for expressing his views about matters of public concern holding that whether an employee decides to assist the charging party or refuses to assist the  employer the employer may not retaliate against the employee because this decision of the employee constitutes participation in an investigation or proceeding under title vii holding in an americans with disability act retaliation action that ujnless an employer knows that an employee is engaging in protected activity it cannot retaliate against that employee because of the protected conduct recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding that an employee engages in protected activity under the first amendment when he threatens to file a lawsuit on a matter of public concern