clearly are. While Mr. Lobato made the bribery report at work as well as to the EEOC, as the Garcetti Court noted, speech may be protected even if it was made at the workplace. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Thus, the first factor weighs in favor of finding that Mr. Lobato spoke as a citizen rather than as an employee. Further, the Tenth Circuit has repeatedly found that a plaintiff has spoken as a citizen where the employee speaker reported the wrongdoing outside the internal chain of command, turning instead to an independent agency when the plaintiff had no legal duty to report to that agency. Reinhardt, 595 F.3d at 1136-37 (collecting cases); see also Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 545 (9th Cir.2006); Davis v. McKinney, 518 F.3d 304, 313-14 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Here, Mr. Lobato went outside his employer’s
holding that a plaintiff did not complain to the eeoc pursuant to official duties but rather as a citizen holding that speech was pursuant to official duties because plaintiff conceded at oral argument that as an internal affairs officer he had a broad responsibility to investigate and report police misconduct holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave