purpose. Id. That is, we must evaluate whether Gardetto spoke out based on the same motivation that would move the public to speak out. Applying these standards to each of the six incidents of speech at issue in this case, we hold that all but two (Gardetto’s criticism of McBroom’s termination and Gar-detto’s conversation with Gonzales) involve matters of public concern. The speech incident that most obviously involves a matt y electrical inspector’s comments complaining of work performed for city officials and their friends on city time, illegal payoffs, and incidents of released substandard electrical work constituted expression on matters of public concern); Wren v. Spurlock, 798 F.2d 1313, 1316-18 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1085, 107 S.Ct. 1287, 94 L.Ed.2d 145 (1987) (<HOLDING>). By the same token, Gardetto’s efforts to
holding school district hable for teachers sexual harassment of student only upon knowing failure to act holding that statement challenging sexual harassment determined to be employee grievance driven by selfinterest was not matter of public concern holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern holding that a teachers accusations of sexual harassment and poor job performance by a principal involved matters of public concern recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern