their brief to this court: “[W]hether probation officers should be involved with police so that they are regarded as law enforcement by the community, and therefore negatively impacting the position of probation officer, is a significant public concern. Without respectful input by those in the field, the provision of governmental services could become ... inefficient, and even counterproductive.” In addition, the officers note that the memorandum called their employer’s attention to the fact that by law probation officers serve in the position of “intake officers” and should not be associated with activities of law enforcement because it affects their neutrality. We conclude that there is much merit to the officers’ arguments, cf. Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), and that the officers have satisfied the
holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that if a direct supervisor who had the responsibility to stop harassment knew of and failed to act against it the plaintiff has no further obligation to bring it to the employers attention holding that attempts to disclose government employee misconduct has been held to further governmental efficiency meeting the governmental employers responsibility to provide effective services holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee holding that a single decision by a final policymaker within the area of his responsibility can impose liability on the responsible governmental entity