the speech of its employees so that it can carry on an efficient and effective workplace. 3. Employee must show the speech was a substantial factor driving the challenged governmental action. 4. If so, can the employer show that it would have taken the same employment action against the employee even in the absence of the protected speech? Kent v. Martin, 252 F.3d 1141, 1143 (10th Cir.2001) (citations and quotation omitted). Applying the Pickering/Connick balancing test, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Downing. It concluded that the issue of King’s lapsed insurance and his interest in forming a union failed at the first step, because both involved personnel issues, not protected speech that touched on matters of public concern. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 146 (<HOLDING>). The district court further concluded that
holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation 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 recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on his or her employers reaction to the speech holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern