informing Upward Bound staff that Upward Bound may be in violation of the WIA for using funds on college preparatory classes, and that use of funds for this purpose was unfair to other programs. Anthoine maintains that this speech is protected by the First Amendment because it was made as a citizen involving a matter of public concern, namely the proper and efficient expenditure of public funds. The Court disagrees. Anthoine’s statements made to Freeman regarding NCCC’s purported failure to provide updated client information to the state are not protected by the First Amendment. This is so because An-thoine uttered the speech as an employee pursuant to his official duties, not as a private citizen speaking on a matter of public concern. See Ceballos, 547 U.S. at 421-24, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (<HOLDING>). Although Anthoine initiated his
holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer holding that probation department employees are not county employees holding that the first amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employees expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities holding that the plaintiffs first amendment retaliation claims are deficient because in each case the incidents upon which plaintiffs base their pleadings concerned personal grievances expressed as employees generally relating to their official duties work schedules working conditions or employer administrative policies and internal operations rather than to any matters of public concern raised by plaintiffs as private citizens holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties the employees are not speaking as citizens for first amendment purposes and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline