The majority cites
Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255 (D.C.Cir.1988) to support its use of the balancing test at the dismissal stage. Majority op. at 783–784, note 1. Procedurally,
Hall does resemble this case. But first off,
Hall is at odds with Ninth Circuit precedent, and second, the D.C. Circuit perceived itself able to draw concrete “reasonable inferences” about possible “untoward consequences from the content, manner, time, and place of the employee's speech.”
Hall, 856 F.2d at 261. The
Hall court extensively discussed the plaintiff's position, responsibilities, and protected speech and balanced them against his employer's specific interest in formulating and implementing its athletic department policies.
Id. at 264–65. The court concluded that “Hall could be dismissed for expressing views on matters within the core of his responsibilities that reflected a policy disagreement with his superiors such that they could not expect him to carry out their policy choices vigorously.”
Id. at 265.