can be constitutionally protected under the public concern test. Thomas argues that she opposed Miller’s treatment of Perry because she believed that the defendants were discriminating against Perry because of Perry’s race and that they were retaliating against Perry because of Perry’s prior discrimination complaints and lawsuit. Although the record is devoid of any evidence that Thomas explicitly or implicitly expressed any concern that the defendants were treating Perry unfairly because she was African American, Thomas’ speech does not have to be about racially disparate treatment in order to be protected. Unlawful conduct by a government employee or illegal activity within a government agency is a matter of public concern. See Ceballos v. Garcetti, 361 F.3d 1168, 1174 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Chateaubriand v. Gaspard, 97 F.3d 1218,
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 search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit holding that falsification of information in a search warrant affidavit was a matter of public concern holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant