{"id":1573,"date":"2021-10-25T03:52:38","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:52:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1573"},"modified":"2022-05-07T15:14:17","modified_gmt":"2022-05-07T15:14:17","slug":"caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kuv547h8-ed581f775f37e7458e2726bae176feff\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kuv547h8-ed581f775f37e7458e2726bae176feff{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kuv547h8-ed581f775f37e7458e2726bae176feff .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kuv547h8-ed581f775f37e7458e2726bae176feff .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kuv547h8-ed581f775f37e7458e2726bae176feff av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-7uzkr9-2ccdbbbd64270623847ac7563e37349c hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kuv55ivo-27960a307880671d594bf25a028d1a68\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kuv55ivo-27960a307880671d594bf25a028d1a68 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kuv55ivo-27960a307880671d594bf25a028d1a68 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">3053\u00a0Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] retaliated against [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] because [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] exercised [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] right to speak as a private citizen about a matter of public concern. To establish this claim, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] must prove all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was speaking as a private citizen and not as a public employee when [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">describe speech alleged to be protected by the\u00a0First Amendment, e.g., criticized the mayor at a city council meeting<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify retaliatory acts, e.g., terminated plaintiff\u2019s employment<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., speech to the city council<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial motivating reason for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s decision to [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., terminate plaintiff\u2019s employment<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was harmed; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s harm.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">If [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] proves all of the above, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] is not liable if [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it] proves either of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">6.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] had an adequate employment-based justification for treating [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] differently from any other member of the general public; or<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">7.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] would have [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify adverse action, e.g., terminated plaintiff\u2019s employment<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] anyway for other legitimate reasons, even if [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it] also retaliated based on [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s protected conduct.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">In deciding whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was speaking as a public citizen or a public employee (element 1), you should consider whether [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., speech<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was within [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] job responsibilities. [However, the listing of a given task in an employee\u2019s written job description is neither necessary nor sufficient alone to demonstrate that conducting the task is part of the employee\u2019s professional duties.] <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New November 2017; Revised May 2020 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>This instruction is for use in a claim by public employees who allege that they suffered an adverse employment action in retaliation for their private speech on an issue of public concern. Speech made by public employees in their official capacity is not insulated from employer discipline by the\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0but speech made in one\u2019s private capacity as a citizen is. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Garcetti v. Ceballos<\/span>\u00a0(2006) 547 U.S. 410, 421 [126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689].) For a claim by a private citizen who alleges retaliation, see\u00a0CACI No. 3050,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Element 1, whether the employee was speaking as a private citizen or as a public employee, and element 6, whether the public employer had an adequate justification for the adverse action, are ultimately determined as a matter of law, but may involve disputed facts. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Eng v. Cooley<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2009) 552 F.3d 1062, 1071.) If there are no disputed facts, these elements should not be given. They may be modified to express the particular factual issues that the jury must resolve.<\/p>\n<p>Give the bracketed optional sentence in the last paragraph if the defendant has placed the plaintiff\u2019s formal written job description in evidence. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Garcetti, supra,<\/span>\u00a0547 U.S. at p. 424.)<\/p>\n<p>Note that there are two causation elements. The protected speech must have caused the employer\u2019s adverse action (element 3), and the adverse action must have caused the employee harm (element 5). This second causation element will rarely be disputed in a termination case. For optional language if the employer claims that there was no adverse action, see\u00a0CACI No. 2505,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Retaliation\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/span>\u00a0(under California\u2019s Fair Employment and Housing Act). See also\u00a0CACI No. 2509,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cAdverse Employment Action\u201d Explained<\/span>\u00a0(under FEHA). <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[C]itizens do not surrender their\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0rights by accepting public employment.\u2019 Moreover, \u2018[t]here is considerable value \u2026 in encouraging, rather than inhibiting, speech by public employees,\u2019 because \u2018government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work.\u2019 At the same time, \u2018[g]overnment employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees\u2019 words and actions.\u2019 Accordingly, government employees may be subject to some restraints on their speech \u2018that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moonin v. Tice<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 868 F.3d 853, 860\u2013861, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cFirst Amendment\u00a0retaliation claims are governed by the framework in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Eng.<\/span>\u00a0See\u00a0552 F.3d at 1070\u201372. [Plaintiff] must show that (1) he spoke on a matter of public concern, (2) he spoke as a private citizen rather than a public employee, and (3) the relevant speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action. Upon that showing, the State must demonstrate that (4) it had an adequate justification for treating [plaintiff] differently from other members of the general public, or (5) it would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the protected speech. \u2018[A]ll the factors are necessary, in the sense that failure to meet any one of them is fatal to the plaintiff\u2019s case.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 869 F.3d 813, 822, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn a\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0retaliation case, an adverse employment action is an act that is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Greisen v. Hanken<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2019) 925 F.3d 1097, 1113.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pickering<\/span>\u00a0[<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">v. Bd. of Educ.<\/span>\u00a0(1968) 391 U.S. 563 [88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811]]\u00a0and the cases decided in its wake identify two inquiries to guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is no, the employee has no\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0cause of action based on his or her employer\u2019s reaction to the speech. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0claim arises. The question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker\u2019s expressions and employment. A government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity\u2019s operations.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Garcetti, supra,<\/span>\u00a0547 U.S. at p. 418, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn the forty years since\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pickering,<\/span>\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0retaliation law has evolved dramatically, if sometimes inconsistently. Unraveling\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pickering\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0tangled history reveals 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 public employee; (3) whether the plaintiff\u2019s 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. Analysis of these questions, further complicated by restraints on our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction, involves a complex array of factual and legal inquiries requiring detailed explanation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Eng, supra,<\/span>\u00a0552 F.3d at p. 1070.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhether speech is on a matter of public concern is a question of law, determined by the court \u2026. The speech need not be entirely about matters of public concern, but it must \u2018substantially involve\u2019 such matters. \u2018[S]peech warrants protection when it \u201cseek[s] to bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Greisen, supra<\/span>, 925 F.3d at p. 1109.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Defendant] may avoid liability if he shows that a \u2018final decision maker\u2019s independent investigation and termination decision, responding to a biased subordinate\u2019s initial report of misconduct,\u2009\u2026 negate[s] any causal link\u2019 between his retaliatory motive and the adverse employment action. This is because a final decision maker\u2019s wholly independent investigation and decision establish that \u2018the employee\u2019s protected speech was not a but-for cause of the adverse employment action.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2012) 678 F.3d 1062, 1072\u20131073, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhether an individual speaks as a public employee is a mixed question of fact and law. \u2018First, a factual determination must be made as to the \u201cscope and content of a plaintiff\u2019s job responsibilities.\u201d\u2009\u2019 \u2018Second, the \u201cultimate constitutional significance\u201d of those facts must be determined as a matter of law.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Barone v. City of Springfield<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2018) 902 F.3d 1091, 1099, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAn employee does not speak as a citizen merely because the employee directs speech towards the public, or speaks in the presence of the public, particularly when an employee\u2019s job duties include interacting with the public.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Barone<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 902 F.3d at p. 1100.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he parties in this case do not dispute that [plaintiff] wrote his disposition memo pursuant to his employment duties. We thus have no occasion to articulate a comprehensive framework for defining the scope of an employee\u2019s duties in cases where there is room for serious debate. We reject, however, the suggestion that employers can restrict employees\u2019 rights by creating excessively broad job descriptions. The proper inquiry is a practical one. Formal job descriptions often bear little resemblance to the duties an employee actually is expected to perform, and the listing of a given task in an employee\u2019s written job description is neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate that conducting the task is within the scope of the employee\u2019s professional duties for\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0purposes.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Garcetti, supra,<\/span>\u00a0547 U.S. at p. 424.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cTo show that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor behind an adverse employment action, a plaintiff can (1) introduce evidence that the speech and adverse action were proximate in time, such that a jury could infer that the action took place in retaliation for the speech; (2) introduce evidence that the employer expressed opposition to the speech; or (3) introduce evidence that the proffered explanations for the adverse action were false and pretextual.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Anthoine v. N. Cent. Counties Consortium<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2010) 605 F.3d 740, 750.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[I]n synthesizing relevant Ninth Circuit precedent since\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Garcetti<\/span>, an en banc panel of this Court in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Dahlia v. Rodriguez,<\/span>\u00a0735 F.3d 1060, 1074\u201376 (9th Cir. 2013), announced three guiding principles for undertaking the practical factual inquiry of whether an employee\u2019s speech is insulated from employer discipline under the\u00a0First Amendment.\u2009\u2026\u2009The guiding principles are: [\u00b6] 1. \u2018First, particularly in a highly hierarchical employment setting such as law enforcement, whether or not the employee confined his communications to his chain of command is a relevant, if not necessarily dispositive, factor in determining whether he spoke pursuant to his official duties. When a public employee communicates with individuals or entities outside of his chain of command, it is unlikely that he is speaking pursuant to his duties.\u2019 [\u00b6] 2. \u2018Second, the subject matter of the communication is also of course highly relevant to the ultimate determination whether the speech is protected by the\u00a0First Amendment\u00a0\u2026 When an employee prepares a routine report, pursuant to normal departmental procedure, about a particular incident or occurrence, the employee\u2019s preparation of that report is typically within his job duties\u2009\u2026\u2009. By contrast, if a public employee raises within the department broad concerns about corruption or systemic abuse, it is unlikely that such complaints can reasonably be classified as being within the job duties of an average public employee, except when the employee\u2019s regular job duties involve investigating such conduct.\u2019 [\u00b6] 3. \u2018Third, we conclude that when a public employee speaks in direct contravention to his supervisor\u2019s orders, that speech may often fall outside of the speaker\u2019s professional duties. Indeed, the fact that an employee is threatened or harassed by his superiors for engaging in a particular type of speech provides strong evidence that the act of speech was not, as a \u2018practical\u2019 matter, within the employee\u2019s job duties notwithstanding any suggestions to the contrary in the employee\u2019s formal job description.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Brandon v. Maricopa County<\/span>\u00a0(9th Cir. 2017) 849 F.3d 837, 843\u2013844, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cInitially, in this case, the burden was properly placed upon respondent to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct was a \u2018substantial factor\u2019\u2014or, to put it in other words, that it was a \u2018motivating factor\u2019 in the [defendant]\u2019s decision not to rehire him. Respondent having carried that burden, however, the District Court should have gone on to determine whether the [defendant] had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to respondent\u2019s re-employment even in the absence of the protected conduct.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle<\/span>\u00a0(1977) 429 U.S. 274, 287 [97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pickering<\/span>\u00a0balancing inquiry is ultimately a legal question, like the private citizen inquiry, its resolution often entails underlying factual disputes. Thus we must once again assume any underlying disputes will be resolved in favor of the plaintiff to determine, as a matter of law, whether the state has \u2018adequate justification\u2019 to restrict the employee\u2019s speech. If the allegations, viewed in light most favorable to the plaintiff, indicate adequate justification, qualified immunity should be granted.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Eng, supra,<\/span>\u00a0552 F.3d at pp. 1071\u20131072, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pickering<\/span>\u00a0framework is most often applied in the retaliation context, a similar analysis is used when assessing prospective restrictions on government employee speech. Where a \u2018wholesale deterrent to a broad category of expression\u2019 rather than \u2018a post hoc analysis of one employee\u2019s speech and its impact on that employee\u2019s public responsibilities\u2019 is at issue, the Court weighs the impact of the ban as a whole\u2014both on the employees whose speech may be curtailed and on the public interested in what they might say\u2014against the restricted speech\u2019s \u2018\u2009\u201cnecessary impact on the actual operation\u201d of the Government,\u2019 \u2018[U]nlike an adverse action taken in response to actual speech,\u2019 a prospective restriction \u2018chills potential speech before it happens.\u2019 The government therefore must shoulder a heavier burden when it seeks to justify an ex ante speech restriction as opposed to \u2018an isolated disciplinary action.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moonin, supra,<\/span>\u00a0868 F.3d at p. 861, internal citations omitted.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, \u00a7\u2009563<\/div>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law \u00a7\u00a7\u2009894, 895<\/div>\n<div>1 Civil Rights Actions, Ch. 2,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Governmental Liability and Immunity<\/span>, \u00b6\u20092.03 (Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-5f47l1-4daaed66245cc90dc781a6748eb067b3\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-5f47l1-4daaed66245cc90dc781a6748eb067b3 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-5f47l1-4daaed66245cc90dc781a6748eb067b3 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1573","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-07T15:14:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:52:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-07T15:14:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-\u00a7-1983\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-07T15:14:17+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/","name":"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:52:38+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-07T15:14:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3053-retaliation-for-exercise-of-free-speech-rights-public-employee-essential-factual-elements-42-u-s-c-%c2%a7-1983\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 3053 Retaliation for Exercise of Free Speech Rights\u2014Public Employee\u2014Essential Factual Elements (42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u20091983)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1573"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4076,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1573\/revisions\/4076"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}