555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808. In light of the above discussion, we can reasonably assume both that El-lins’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in Diaz’s decision, and that Diaz would not have delayed signing Ellins’s P.O.S.T. application in the absence of his protected speech. Ellins’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for engaging in protected speech was clearly established in 2009 when Diaz allegedly delayed the signing of his P.O.S.T. application. Forty years previously, in 1968, the Supreme Court established that public employees have a First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for commenting on matters of public concern, even when the protected comments are critical of their employers. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 571, 88 S.Ct. 1731 (<HOLDING>). In Connick, decided in 1983, the Supreme
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 holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that a school districts policy which limited and restricted teachers speech criticizing other staff members administrators or school board members by restricting the audience to which such criticisms could  be directed was contentbased because it distinguished between favored and disfavored speech on the basis of the views expressed holding that a teacher could not be dismissed for criticizing school boards budget management even though the criticism included false allegations against board members because the speech addressed a matter of public concern and the speech did not prevent the school districts efficient functioning holding speech about reasons for school principals resignation a matter of public concern