403 F.3d 855

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that McElroy’s complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to describe the retaliatory conduct more particularly.
Respectfully, however, I do not agree that it should be dismissed because the speech which allegedly caused the retaliation was not a matter of public concern and therefore not protected.
It seems clear that a group of prisoners, not just McElroy individually, were left unemployed by the closing of the sewing shop. All these would have an interest in receiving lay-in pay while unemployed. McElroy’s question would surely concern that “public” and the general public would be concerned with the policy of compensating prisoners for whom there is no work.

Passage view · GavelSight