Branti, 445 U.S. at 518-20, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 6 . Id. at 519-20, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 7 . Id. at 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 8 . Id. 9 . Id. 10 . See, e.g., Savage v. Gorski, 850 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.1988); Faughender v. City of North Olmsted, 927 F.2d 909 (6th Cir.1991); Soderbeck v. Burnett Cty., 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir.1985); DiRuzza v. County of Tehama, 206 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir.2000); Fazio v. City and County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997). 11 . 125 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997). 12 . Id. at 1332 (alteration in original) (quoting Branti, 445 U.S. at 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287). 13 . Id. at 1333 (alteration in original) (citing Wilbur v. Mahan, 3 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir.1993)). 14 . Id. at 1334. 15 . 189 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.1999). 16 . Id. at 994-95. 17 . Id. at 995 (quoting Fazio, 125 F.3d at 1331 (<HOLDING>)). But see Barker v. City of Del City, 215 F.3d
holding that pickering balancing is not reached if the branti exception applies holding that the language if the merits were reached the result would be the same is a contrarytofact holding not an alternative holding emphasis in original holding that it is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if for a different reason recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception recognizing exception