Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 1 . The district court dismissed defendant City of New York (the "City”) from the action, reasoning that the Department of Education, rather than the City, was Desir’s direct employer. The district court also dismissed the Title VII claims against Cooperman, Lombardi, and Burnett on the ground that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII. Desir does not challenge either of these rulings on appeal. 2 . To the extent that Desir identifies statements he made concerning the treatment of other instructors in the program, those remarks were made in his official capacity and thus do not receive protection under the First Amendment. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 424, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (<HOLDING>). 3 . Desir does not challenge the district
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 holding that the regulations prohibit only monetary discipline of exempt employees holding that the first amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employees expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution 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