seriously wrong or corrupt conduct, the plaintiffs have little basis for claiming First Amendment protection. The.Supreme Court created the “public concern” requirement to prevent “intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.” See Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684. Previously, this court has followed these instructions by limiting the notion of public concern to eases of serious wrongdoing, so as to dissuade litigants from using, federal courts to settle employment and management disputes. The majority departs from this approach and unwisely expands the notion of public concern to include disputes between employees and their supervisors. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 1 . Wallace v. Texas Tech. Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1050-51 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Kirkland v. Northside Indep. Sch.
holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected recognizing that code is speech holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected