context: Mere evidence that defendants knew of plaintiffs protected speech is not sufficient to show retaliatory motivation.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 518 U.S. 685, 685
citation_a.parenthetical: "Umbehr must show that the termination of his contract was motivated by his speech on a matter of public concern, an initial showing that requires him to prove more than the mere fact that he criticized the Board members before they terminated him."
citation_a.sentence: Keyser, 265 F.3d at 751 (mere evidence that defendant knew of plaintiffs’ charges did not create a triable issue as to whether his decision to reassign them was motivated by the charges); see also Umbehr, 518 U.S. at 685, 116 S.Ct. 2342 (“Umbehr must show that the termination of his contract was motivated by his speech on a matter of public concern, an initial showing that requires him to prove more than the mere fact that he criticized the Board members before they terminated him.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 265 F.3d 751, 751
citation_b.parenthetical: mere evidence that defendant knew of plaintiffs' charges did not create a triable issue as to whether his decision to reassign them was motivated by the charges
citation_b.sentence: Keyser, 265 F.3d at 751 (mere evidence that defendant knew of plaintiffs’ charges did not create a triable issue as to whether his decision to reassign them was motivated by the charges); see also Umbehr, 518 U.S. at 685, 116 S.Ct. 2342 (“Umbehr must show that the termination of his contract was motivated by his speech on a matter of public concern, an initial showing that requires him to prove more than the mere fact that he criticized the Board members before they terminated him.”).