to these professional duties, is not protected under the First Amendment. The fact that Haynes communicated solely to his superior also indicates that he was speaking in his capacity as a public employee ..., not as a member of the public writing a letter to the editor as in Pickering. At the time that Haynes sent his memo in February 2003, he was simply speculating that someday there could be a negative incident that might result from the reduction in canine training. Haynes’s memo focused on his discontent with the new program.... The memo thus reflect nothing more than the quintessential employee beef: management has acted incompetently. 474 F.3d at 364-65. (Citations and some internal punctuation omitted.) See also Mills v. City of Evansville, 452 F.3d 646, 648 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 545-46 (9th
holding as not protected speech a prison guards internal complaints documenting her superiors failure to respond to inmates sexually explicit behavior toward her holding that a police sergeants speech was not protected under garcetti where the sergeant was on duty in uniform and engaged in a discussion with her superiors holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity holding that pursuant to garcetti plaintiffs speech made in the course of his official duties was unprotected as a matter of law holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected