What is the test for First Amendment rights in the context of a workplace discrimination claim?

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by holding that amendment would be futile as to Nickler's First Amendment 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim. The district court correctly held that "Nickler does not cogently allege that she was speaking about a matter of public concern." Rather, Nickler has judicially admitted that her comment did not garner First Amendment protections, because she has said that she was discussing her frustration with her work, rather than a matter of public concern. See Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that speech regarding individual personnel disputes and everyday workplace grievances did not state a claim under the First Amendment).