speech, while the portions of the questionnaire soliciting her colleague’s views on office morale, the policy of transferring employees, the need for a grievance committee, and the level of confidence in her superiors were not protected. Connick, 461 U.S. at 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684. These cases, when viewed as a whole, distinguish between speech that is “the kind of activity engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government,” Garcetti, 126 S.Ct. at 1962, and activities undertaken in the course of performing one’s job. Activities undertaken in the course of performing one’s job are activities pursuant to official duties. Id. at 1960. Other circuits have drawn similar conclusions from Gar-cetti and those cases preceding it. See, e.g., Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Battle v. Bd. of Regents, 468 F.3d 755, 761
holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding as not protected speech a prison guards internal complaints documenting her superiors failure to respond to inmates sexually explicit behavior toward her holding that a police sergeants speech was not protected under garcetti where the sergeant was on duty in uniform and engaged in a discussion with her superiors holding that plaintiffs allegations that coworker attempted to grab her breast and later touched and rubbed her thigh that customers made sexually threatening remarks and that supervisors did not respond to her complaints about these incidents did not support a hostile work environment claim