Desrochers v. City of San Bernardino

Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain; Dissent by Judge Wardlaw

We must decide whether police officers’ complaints about their supervisors’ conduct may give rise to a constitutional violation.

I

A

Michael Desrochers and Steve Lowes have been members of the San Bernardino Police Department (“SBPD”) for over twenty years. At the time the events at issue in this case occurred, Desrochers was the sergeant in charge of the SBPD Homicide Unit, while Lowes commanded the SBPD Multiple Enforcement Team (the “Gang Unit”).

On June 23, 2006, Desrochers was transferred from the Homicide Unit to the Robbery Unit, an action he viewed as a demotion. Meanwhile, Lowes was the subject of an internal affairs investigation pertaining to an April 27, 2006, arrest. At the conclusion of the investigation, Lowes received a two-week suspension. The parties hotly contest the reasons for these employment actions. The City argues Desrochers was transferred for botching a murder investigation and Lowes was suspended for disobeying orders and endangering a suspect in custody. Desrochers and Lowes claim that both the transfer and the suspension amounted to retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, as detailed below.

1

On April 19, 2006, Desrochers and Lowes, along with two other SBPD sergeants (Steve Filson and William Hanley), filed an informal grievance against their supervisor, Lieutenant Mitchal Kimball, who headed the Specialized Enforcement Bureau (“SEB”).1 There is no transcript of the meeting at which they presented their concerns. According to Captain Frank Mankin, who adjudicated the grievance, the complainants alleged that “there was an ongoing and continuing issue relative to a difference of personalities between the four sergeants” and Lieutenant Kimball. Mankin continued: “It was the impression of the four sergeants that the interaction between themselves and Lieutenant Kimball had risen to a level so as to *706impact the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the units over which Lieutenant Kimball had managerial oversight.” The sergeants requested that the department 1) remove Kimball from command of the SEB; 2) formally investigate the charges contained in their grievance; 3) place Kim-ball on a “[w]ork performance contract”; 4) order Kimball to attend “[i]nterpersonal relations training”; and 5) monitor Kim-ball’s conduct in the future.

After learning of the informal grievance, Kimball immediately requested a transfer from the SEB. His transfer request was granted, and Desrochers and Lowes both admit that they had little to no contact with Kimball after the transfer. Lieutenant Brian Boom replaced Kimball.

Meanwhile, Filson and Hanley reached an agreement with the Chief of Police, Michael Billdt, which resolved their concerns. Desrochers and Lowes’ grievance remained outstanding.

2

Believing that the SBPD had not taken adequate steps to resolve their concerns, Desrochers and Lowes filed a formal grievance against Kimball as well as Billdt and Mankin. The sergeants alleged that Kimball had created a “hostile work environment by his repeated violations” of various internal SBPD policies. The grievance also accused Billdt and Mankin of perpetuating this environment by “failing] to take appropriate action.” Desrochers and Lowes each attached declarations detailing their concerns.

In his declaration, Lowes described the “[p]roblem” as follows:

Lt. Kimball is a very autocratic, controlling and critical supervisor. Everyone that works for him has felt the stress that he brings to every situation! • • • • ] He controls and manipulates every conversation until it concludes to his satisfaction. He absolutely discourages any dissention [sic] from his opinion and gives the definite sense that anyone that disagrees with his approach is incompetent. He often uses the phrase “hammer-nail” to illustrate that he is the hammer and everyone else is the nail .... we do and go where he tells us. These are general descriptions of Lt. Kimball that are well understood by everyone under his control. He operates in the belief that everyone around him is incompetent and that, without his influence, the police department would quickly fail.

In short, Lowes asserted that Kimball’s “approach and tactics were destroying the moral [sic] and confidence of his men.”

Lowes provided examples. On one occasion, Kimball “chewed out” Lowes in front of members of the Rialto Police Department, implying that the other department was “incompeten[t].” Lowes claimed that this incident “undermined [his] effort to build a positive relationship with Rialto PD and assist them ... in a positive way.” On another occasion, “Kimball embarrassed the [San Bernardino] SWAT team by confronting a visiting SWAT team (Riverside PD),” leaving the “definite impression” that he “thought that Riverside PD was incompetent.”

Lowes also described Kimball as a “micro-manage[r],” someone who “insult[s]” fellow officers, one who “undermines ... efforts to develop ... team members,” and a man whose “need to be technically correct and powerful at every turn ultimately destroys relationships.” Lowes admitted that all the incidents he recounted “taken individually may seem minor.” Combined, however, Lowes thought that

[t]hese incidents amount to added stress and distrust in the daily operations of the unit. Individual team members feel *707that Lt. Kimball is making a power play for no other reason than to be powerful. The stress and conflict between [Lowes’] team building values/mission and Lt. Kimball’s need for his definition of power or control make the [Gang Unit] sergeant position unrewarding.

Desrochers stated that while he had never before filed a complaint against any member of the police department, he did so here because he “believe[d] it to be a necessary step forward in an attempt to change the culture of this police department and the way we treat each other.” Throughout the complaint, he repeatedly referenced Kimball’s “management style.” He detailed occasions where he felt Kim-ball “belittled [him] in front of [his] investigators and patrol officers,” indicating that “[Kimball] did not trust [the] judgment” of Desrochers and his fellow officers. He also recounted “tantrum” Kimball threw in front of members of a neighboring police force. Desrochers believed that Kimball’s behavior “did not put the San Bernardino police department in a positive light,” and demonstrated that “Kimball was not eager to work cooperatively with this other agency.”

Desrochers also maintained that Kim-ball’s “autocratic style” and “disregard for [his] rank or authority ... did not inspire ... confidence, and circumvented [Desrochers’] authority with [his] investigators.” As evidence, Desrochers noted situations where Kimball’s orders contradicted his own.

Ultimately, Desrochers concluded that Kimball’s reputation as “an autocratic leader” and his “management style and bullying” affected the Homicide Unit “in a negative way.”2 Kimball, Desrochers stated, “made it very clear that he wanted things his way and only his way and he did not care about or trust the opinions of any investigator in [the Homicide] unit.” Desrochers claimed that this not only “negatively effected [sic] moral [sic] in [the] unit,” but also “made it very difficult for [him] to perform [his] duty” to the point at which he was “unable to supervise the unit because of [Kimball’s] interference.”

The grievance alleged that Billdt and Mankin did not take the appropriate steps to remedy the “hostile work environment” created by Kimball. Desrochers and Lowes charged Billdt and Mankin, like Kimball, with violations of internal SBPD policies. Desrochers believed that “Man-kin was more concerned about Lieutenant Kimball’s future promotion than he was about our issues.” Desrochers further stated that the “inaction on the part of Chief Billdt and Captain Mankin has negatively effecting [sic] my unit,” while Lowes accused Mankin of giving him an order in “a clear attempt to cause ... stress.”

As a remedy, the grievance requested 1) “[a]cknowledgment that the ... listed violations of policy and core values are not condoned by the administration of the San Bernardino Police Department”; 2) an agreement “to monitor and develop Lt. Kimball in order to prevent any future [similar] incidents”; and 3) a commitment to “develop and publish additions to ... organizational core values that ... reflect the type of culture that fosters respect and friendly interaction between all employees regardless of rank.”

In due course, Mankin notified Desrochers and Lowes that their formal grievance had been denied.

*7083

On June 19, 2006, Desrochers and Lowes filed a complaint with the City’s Human Resources Department (“HR”), appending their formal grievance against Kimball, Mantón, and Billdt. The complaint was marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” Additionally, they raised concerns regarding the performance of Boom, the officer who had replaced Kimball. Specifically, they feared that “Boom will be used as a tool by [Billdt] to retaliate against [the sergeants] for reporting the grievance.” The complaint alleged that other officers were “very much ... victim[s] of stress due to Lt. Boom’s hostile work environment practices.” It also stated that Billdt had “mentioned to many within the department that he is very disappointed in [Desrochers and Lowes] for filing [their grievance].” Lowes reported that when he refused to sign a document resolving the matter at the informal stage, Billdt told him that he was “going to do something and that ‘thing’ would be for the good of the department.” Lowes “took [that] as a threat of retaliation.” Finally, Desrochers and Lowes noted that Mantón had been promoted to assistant chief while their grievance against him was pending. They saw this as evidence of a “double standard,” because “[promotions in [the] department are often put on hold pending the outcome of investigations of misconduct.” Both officers claimed they filed the complaint “for the good of the department.”

On June 23, 2006, Desrochers and Lowes amended their HR complaint, adding details of several incidents involving Boom. They accused Boom of having a “long history of inappropriate and harassing comments given to coworkers, peers and subordinates.” For example, on one occasion, Boom had made an offensive comment about Desrochers’ wife; on another occasion he had done the same with respect to Desrochers’ daughter. Boom had also “poked fun” at an overweight officer. When Desrochers discussed the latter incident with Mantón, Mantón informed him that his concerns regarding Boom were “unfounded.”

In addition to the remedies detailed in the formal grievance, Desrochers and Lowes requested: “removal of Lt. Boom as SEB supervisor and replacement by Lt. R.C. Garcia”; “full investigation of Chief Billdt’s failure to investigate Lt. Boom”; and “full investigation of Lt. Boom for inappropriate and harassing comments.” Ultimately, Desrochers and Lowes were denied the relief they requested from HR.

B

On December 20, 2006, the sergeants filed a complaint in the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Desrochers’ transfer and the disciplinary action against Lowes constituted retaliation for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. In addition to the constitutional claim, Desrochers and Lowes raised several state law claims. The district court concluded that the sergeants’ speech did not address matters of public concern. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

The sergeants timely appealed.

II

A First Amendment retaliation claim against a government employer involves

a sequential five-step series of questions: (1) whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public concern; (2) whether the plaintiff spoke as a private citizen or

*709public employee; (3) whether the plaintiffs protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action; (4) whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of the general public; and (5) whether the state would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the protected speech.

Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir.2009). Because the district court concluded that Desrochers and Lowes’ speech did not touch on matters of public concern, its analysis ended at step one.

Our review is therefore limited to the public concern inquiry. We have “not articulated a precise definition of ‘public concern,’ ” Allen v. Scribner, 812 F.2d 426, 430 (9th Cir.1987), recognizing instead that such inquiry “is not an exact science,” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we have forsworn “rigid multi-part tests that would shoehorn communication into ill-fitting categories,” id., and relied on a generalized analysis of the nature of the speech. Perhaps unsurprisingly, “courts have had some difficulty

deciding when speech deals with an issue of ‘public concern.’ ” McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F.2d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir.1983).

It is clear, however, that the essential question is whether the speech addressed matters of “public” as opposed to “personal” interest. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). “[This] inquiry is purely a question of law, which we review de novo.” Eng, 552 F.3d at 1070; see also Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1684.3 The plaintiffs “bear[ ] the burden of showing that the[ir] speech addressed an issue of public concern,” Eng, 552 F.3d at 1070, based on “the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record,” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684.

A

The sergeants urge us to conclude that their speech “ ‘can fairly be considered to relate to’ ” a matter of public concern. Eng, 552 F.3d at 1070 (quoting Johnson v. Multnomah County, 48 F.3d 420, 422 (9th Cir.1995)).4 We have defined *710the “scope of the public concern element ... broadly,” Ulrich, v. City & County of S.F., 308 F.3d 968, 978 (9th Cir.2002), and adopted a “liberal construction of what an issue ‘of public concern’ is under the First Amendment,” Roe v. City & County of S.F., 109 F.3d 578, 586 (9th Cir.1997). But there are limits. “In a close case, when the subject matter of a statement is only marginally related to issues of public concern, the fact that it was made because of a grudge or other private interest or to coworkers rather than to the press may lead the court to conclude that the statement does not substantially involve a matter of public concern.” Johnson, 48 F.3d at 425; see also Alpha Energy Savers, Inc. v. Hansen, 381 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting the “close case” language of Johnson, but deciding that “[tjhis is ... not a close case”); Roe, 109 F.3d at 586 (applying the “close case” language of Johnson). We assess each aspect of the Connick test in turn.

1

“First and foremost, we consider the content of the speech,” Weeks, 246 F.3d at 1234, “ ‘the greatest single factor in the Connick inquiry.’ ” Johnson, 48 F.3d at 424 (quoting Havekost v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 925 F.2d 316, 318 (9th Cir. 1991)). Desrochers and Lowes claim that the content of their speech pertains to the morale of their units, the “operational efficiency and effectiveness” of the SBPD, and potential misconduct by government officials — matters which they contend are inherently of public concern.

To address a matter of public concern, the content of the sergeants’ speech must involve “issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to make informed decisions about the operation of their government.” McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Gillette v. Delmore, 886 F.2d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1989) (describing “matter[s] of political, social, or other concern to the community” as matters of public concern). “On the other hand, speech that deals with ‘individual personnel disputes and grievances’ and that would be of ‘no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies’ is generally not of ‘public concern.’ ” See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114); see also Connick, 461 U.S. at 154, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (stating that speech limited to “an employee grievance concerning internal office policy” is unprotected). The same is true of “speech that relates to internal power struggles within the workplace,”5 and speech which is of no interest “beyond the employee’s bureaucratic niche.” Tucker v. Cal. Dep’t of Educ., 97 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Desrochers and Lowes attempt to characterize their grievances as necessarily implicating issues such as the “competency,” “preparedness,” “efficiency,” and “morale” of the SBPD. See McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114 (stating that “the competency of [a] police force is surely a matter of great public concern”); see also Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 866 (9th Cir.1999) (“[A]n opinion about the preparedness of a vital public-safety insti*711tution ... goes to the core of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern.”); Allen, 812 F.2d at 431 (noting that speech “related to the competency of ... management as well as the efficient performance of [government] duties” addressed a matter of public concern); McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114 (noting that “discipline and morale in the workplace ... are related to an agency’s efficient performance of its duties,” and hence may inform the public concern inquiry (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We are not persuaded. We have never held that a simple reference to government functioning automatically qualifies as speech on a matter of public concern. To the contrary, as we have recently indicated, the fact that speech contains “passing references to public safety[,] incidental to the message conveyed” weighs against a finding of public concern. Robinson v. York, 566 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

To be sure, as the cases cited above indicate, at times we have employed broad language.6 But those sweeping pronouncements cannot be read to encompass the content of the speech before us. See, e.g., Roth v. Veteran’s Admin., 856 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir.1988) (“We do not necessarily suggest that all speech concerning ... government inefficiency automatically deserves protection.”). For example, what if we judges prohibited our law clerks from taking coffee breaks? Suppose they responded with a memorandum complaining about the action. While they might assert — perhaps fairly — that caffeine deprivation would adversely affect their performance, morale, efficiency, and thus, their competency, no one would seriously contend that such speech addressed a matter of public concern. See Havekost, 925 F.2d at 319 (stating that the speech regarding the “length and distribution of coffee breaks” does not address a matter of public concern). Similarly, the reality that poor interpersonal relationships amongst coworkers might hamper the work of a government office does not automatically transform speech on such issues into speech on a matter of public concern.7

Moreover, the plain language of the grievances differs from the sergeants’ post hoc characterizations. We look to what the employees actually said, not what they say they said after the fact. In Roe, for example, a police officer transmitted a memorandum to a district attorney’s office, detailing his view on a discrete legal issue. See 109 F.3d at 580-81. The memorandum contained “legal questions and case summaries which appeared to be from prepared materials.” Id. at 581. On appeal, Roe argued that his memorandum “ad*712dressed search and seizure issues of vital interest to citizens in evaluating their government in that a suspected felon would escape prosecution because [the district attorney] had misunderstood the relevant Fourth Amendment law.” Id. at 585 (internal quotation marks omitted). We disagreed, stating that “[i]f Roe’s letter had stated just that, his argument would be stronger. However, such a reading is not to be found in his missive.” Id. “No message of vital public import” was to be found in an “inter-office transmittal of case citations and summaries.” Id.

As in Roe, we decline to “construe [the sergeants’ speech] differently from its plain language.” Id. Here, the plain language of the grievances does not “directly address[] police competence,” Dissent at 724, but rather indicates that Desrochers and Lowes were involved in a personality dispute centered on Kimball’s management style. The speech in question is largely devoid of reference to matters we have deemed to be of public concern. There are no allegations of conduct amounting to “actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. 1684.8 One can read the grievances and conclude that Kimball was arrogant, Boom was irreverent, and Mankin and Billdt disagreed with the sergeants’ assessment of their lieutenants, but that does not mean they were incompetent, and it certainly does not mean that they were malfeasant. Cf. McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114.

Likewise, while the grievances state that Kimball’s actions “made it difficult for [the sergeants’] teams to function” and impacted the SBPD “in a negative way,” a reader struggles in vain to discover where or how the proper functioning of the police department was jeopardized by the actions of Kimball, Mankin, Billdt, or Boom. Cf, e.g., Gilbrook, 177 F.3d at 866 (involving statements which addressed “the fire department’s ability to respond effectively to life-threatening emergencies”). There are no accounts of failed law enforcement efforts, no descriptions of botched investigations, and no discussion of duties the SBPD was unable to perform in a competent fashion due to the actions of the sergeants’ supervisors.9 Cf, e.g., Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1139 (9th Cir.1992) (involving speech on the “inept, inefficient, and potentially harmful administration of a governmental entity”). Desrochers and Lowes do not allege that anyone failed to do his job, or even that someone did his job poorly. Cf, e.g., Gillette, 886 F.2d at 1197-98 (involving speech criticizing police officers for using excessive force on a particular occasion).10 Rather, the sergeants complain about their superiors’ — especially Kimball’s — personalities; the grievances amount to a laundry list of reasons why Desrochers, Lowes, and perhaps other SBPD employees found working for Kim-*713ball to be an unpleasant experience.11 In short, they thought their boss was a bully and said so.

But when working for the government, saying one’s boss is a bully does not necessarily a constitutional case make. “[T]he content of the communication must be of broader societal concern. [Our] focus must be upon whether the public or community is likely to be truly interested in the particular expression, or whether it is more properly viewed as essentially a private grievance.” Roe, 109 F.3d at 585 (emphases added). On the facts of this case, we cannot say that the public would be truly interested that two police sergeants believed their supervisor was a “micro-manager,” “autocratic” and “controlling,” or even that he dressed them down in front of their colleagues and neighboring police forces.12 Such speech, “if released to the public, would convey no information at all other than the fact that [two] employee[s were] upset with the status quo,” Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. 1684, and is of no relevance “beyond the employeefs’] bureaucratic niche,” Tucker, 97 F.3d at 1210. On numerous occasions, our sister circuits have suggested that complaints of this nature would not trigger constitutional protection. See Taylor v. Carmouche, 214 F.3d 788, 789-92 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that speech “concern[ing] supervisory management styles” would be unprotected); Kennedy v. Tangipahoa Parish Library Bd. of Control, 224 F.3d 359, 374 (5th Cir.2000) (noting that “criticizing] the management style or job per*714formance of [a] direct superior” would cut against a public concern finding), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 814 (10th Cir.1996) (“Management practices or decisions allocating management responsibility to particular individuals also do not involve matters of public concern.”); see also Brooks v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 406 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir.2005) (describing “infighting” and decisions which “undermine” an individual’s “control of a department” as “a classic personnel struggle”).13 Indeed, to hold otherwise here would be to create the potential for litigation in every workplace gripe exchanged around the water cooler.14

Boiled down to its essence, the speech at issue reflects dissatisfaction with a superi- or’s management style and the ongoing personality dispute which resulted.15 Recognizing that the content of the speech relates at best only tangentially to matters of public concern, we proceed to the next prongs of the Connick test.

2

The sergeants do not claim that the form of their speech lends itself to a finding of public concern. Nor could they. The fact that the speech took the form of an internal employee grievance means that the public was never made aware of Desrochers and Lowes’ concerns. “That [the employee] expressed his views inside his office, rather than publicly, is not dispositive.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 420, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). We have recognized, however, that “[a] limited audience weights] against [a] claim of protected speech.” See Roe, 109 F.3d at 585; McKinley, 705 F.2d at 1114 (“The result in Connick is also explained by the fact that the employee did not seek to inform the public about the operation of a public agency.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

The relevance of non-disclosure to the public tracks the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that “the public’s interest in receiving the well-informed views of government employees engaging in civic discussion” is one of the primary purposes of its First Amendment retaliation jurisprudence. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 419, 126 S.Ct. 1951. “Public speech is more likely to serve the public values of the First Amendment. Private speech motivated by an office grievance is less likely to convey the information that is a prerequisite for an informed electorate.” Weeks, 246 F.3d *715at 1235 (citation omitted). Thus, though “a private complaint may relate to a matter of public concern,” our consideration of the form Desrochers and Lowes adopted to convey their message “help[s us] identify [whether their] speech ... is of public concern.” Id16

Because the speech at issue took the form of internal employee grievances which were not disseminated to the public, this portion of the Connick test cuts against a finding of public concern.17

3

Finally, Desrochers and Lowes argue that the context in which their speech was uttered suggests that they were motivated, not by a personal vendetta against Kim-ball, but rather out of a concern for the well-being of the SBPD.

The sergeants are correct that “[t]o aid us in ascertaining when speech ... rises to a level of public concern, we examine the context of the speech, particularly the point of the speech.” Roth, 856 F.2d at 1405; see also Gilbrook, 177 F.3d at 866 (“An employee’s motivation [is] relevant to the public-concern inquiry.”). In other words, why did the employee speak (as best as we can tell)? Does the speech “seek to bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust,” or is it animated instead by “dissatisfaction” with one’s employment situation? Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. 1684; Roth, 856 F.2d at 1405. The question of whether the speech was made to “further some purely private interest” is relevant to that inquiry, Havekost, 925 F.2d at 318, as is a determination of whether the speech was made in the context of a workplace “power struggle,” Tucker, 97 F.3d at 1210 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The sergeants’ claims of altruistic motivation find some support in the record. The grievances state that Desrochers and Lowes felt compelled to act “for the good of the department.” They believed that their actions were “a necessary step forward in an attempt to change the culture of this police department and the way we treat each other.” This characterization of the sergeants’ motivation is further bolstered by the fact that when Desrochers and Lowes initiated their complaints, they held “secure” positions. Roth, 856 F.2d at 1406. Thus, their speech was not “precipitated by adverse actions of [their] supervisors pertaining to[their] employment,” such as a transfer or demotion. Id Similarly, the record indicates that at least one of the sergeants had never before filed any form of grievance.

However, the record also contains undisputed evidence that Desrochers and Lowes were motivated by their dissatisfaction with their employment situation brought on by “a difference of personalities between” the sergeants and Kimball. For example, Lowes forthrightly described his job as “unrewarding” so long as Kimball was his supervisor. The sergeants even asked that Kimball be required to attend “[^Interpersonal relations training,” and that the SBPD formally acknowledge that their vision of how an office should be run was right, and Kimball’s was wrong.

*716Connick — which itself turned on a contextual inquiry — is especially instructive here. In that case, an assistant district attorney, Sheila Myers, was informed that she would be transferred. 461 U.S. at 140, 103 S.Ct. 1684. She was “strongly opposed to the proposed transfer,” and made her objections known to several supervisors. Id. Despite her concerns, she was told that the decision was final. In response, Myers circulated a questionnaire to the office “concerning office transfer policy, office morale, [and] the level of confidence in supervisors.” Id. at 141, 103 S.Ct. 1684.18 The Court concluded, however, that these matters were not of public concern. Instead, they were “mere extensions of Myers’ dispute over her transfer.” Id. at 148, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (emphasis added).

Here, Desrochers and Lowes’ speech was “mere[ly an] extension! ]” of the running spat between the sergeants and Kim-ball. See Voigt v. Savell, 70 F.3d 1552, 1560 (9th Cir.1995) (describing speech as an “extension of[a] personal dispute” between coworkers).19 The ultimate source of the grievances can be traced to the simple fact that the sergeants and Kimball did not get along. They preferred a particular management style, and he employed another. Their initial informal grievance centered on Kimball and Kim-ball alone. It was not until Mankin and Billdt disagreed with Desrochers and Lowes’ assessment of Kimball’s performance that they, too, became objects of the sergeants’ ire. Accordingly, “we do not believe these [statements] are of public import in evaluating the performance of’ the SPBD. Connick, 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. 1684.20

Our opinion in Lambert v. Richard, 59 F.3d 134 (9th Cir.1995), is not to the contrary. There, the plaintiff, Lambert, read a prepared statement criticizing her supervisor, the director of the local library, at a city council meeting. Id. at 135. The supervisor was described as an individual who “mismanaged the library department and treated employees in an abusive and intimidating manner.” Id. at 136. His conduct was allegedly “having an adverse effect on service to the public.” Id. “Lambert told the council that the library was ‘barely’ functioning and that employees who dealt regularly with the public were performing ‘devoid of zest, with leaden hearts and wooden hands.’ ” Id. We concluded that Lambert’s speech was on a matter of public concern. Id.

Portions of Desrochers and Lowes’ grievances contain similar allegations about their supervisors’ negative impact on *717unit morale.21 Crucially, however, the context in Lambert was very different from the case at hand.22 In Lambert, “the tension between the staff of the City Library and the defendant Richard [was a] subject of public discussion.” Id. “Lambert was not the first city employee to publically question Richard’s job performance. Librarians had been wearing anti-Richard buttons to work. Two weeks before Lambert addressed the council [the union president] had complained to that body about ... the staffs lack of confidence in Richard.” Id. at 135. No such political struggle occurred here. Desrochers and Lowes never claim to have disclosed their concerns publically, and there is no indication that the general public was even remotely aware of Kimball’s actions. There is a marked distinction between speech motivated by personal differences and circulated to a few colleagues, and speech before a city council on a matter in the public eye. The Supreme Court has warned us that speech “not otherwise of public concern does not attain that status because its subject matter could, in different circumstances, have been the topic of a communication to the public that might be of general interest.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (emphasis added). The question is not whether particular subjects “could be matters of public concern”; the question is whether “this [speech]” meets the test. Id.23

Therefore, we conclude that “this [speech],” taken in context, merely reflects two employees’ dissatisfaction with their employment situation, a conclusion which weighs against a finding of public concern. 461 U.S. at 148, 103 S.Ct. 1684.

B

After assessing “the content, form, and context” of the sergeants’ grievances, “as revealed by the whole record,” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684, we conclude that Desrochers and Lowes failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that their speech “can be fairly considered as relating to a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” Voigt, 70 F.3d at 1559. While the working environment in the SEB might have been unpleasant, the speech at issue involved nothing more than an internal dispute. “An internal dispute with no wider societal implications is not a matter of public concern. Instead, it falls within the genre of ‘personnel disputes and grievances’ which are not constitutionally significant.” Roe, 109 F.3d at 586.24

*718■ The dissent obviously reaches a different conclusion. However, every case cited by the dissent to reach such conclusion contains significant factual distinctions from the matter at hand.25 Given the fact-intensive nature of our inquiry, these distinctions make all the difference. The speech at issue in this case is simply not of the same ilk. If the mere suggestion that a bullying superior affects the morale and operational effectiveness of a public agency were enough to create speech on a matter of public concern, Connick would cease to mean much.

That said, the fact that this case has generated a thoughtful dissent suggests that it is close. But once again, we have said that “[i]n a close case, when the subject matter of a statement is only marginally related to issues of public concern, the fact that it was made because of a grudge or other private interest or to co-workers rather than to the press may lead the court to conclude that the statement does not ... involve a matter of public eoncern.” Johnson, 48 F.3d at 425; see also Weeks, 246 F.3d at 1235. The subject matter of the speech before us at best relates “only marginally” to issues of public concern, the grievances were motivated by a personal dispute, and the sergeants’ concerns were never relayed to the press or the public. Accordingly, Desrochers and Lowes’ speech is “most accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal office policy.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 154, 103 S.Ct. 1684.26

We reach our conclusion in light of the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that “while the First Amendment invests public employees with certain rights, it does not empower them to constitutionalize the employee grievance.” Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 420, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Connick, 461 U.S. at 154, 103 S.Ct. 1684.27 “[A] federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision.... ” Connick, *719461 U.S. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. To transform every workplace squabble into the proverbial “federal case” would be to trivialize the “great principles of free expression” the First Amendment embodies. Id. at 154, 103 S.Ct. 1684.

As the district court concluded, a “ruling that[the sergeants’] speech addressed a matter of public concern, taken to its logical extreme, would allow a constitutional claim for nearly any internal administrative discussions by employees of a public agency.” It “would mean that virtually every remark — and certainly every criticism directed at a public official — would plant the seed of a constitutional case.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 149, 103 S.Ct. 1684. The First Amendment does not require such a result. As the Court said in Con-nick, it would indeed be a “Pyrrhic victory” if “a public employee’s right, as a citizen, to participate in discussions concerning public affairs were confused with the attempt to constitutionalize the employee grievance that we see presented here.” Id. at 154,103 S.Ct. 1684.

Ill

For the foregoing reasons, Desrochers and Lowes cannot meet the threshold requirement to state a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983.28 Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment is

AFFIRMED.