Plaintiffs James Brooks and Donald Hamlette were employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC). Brooks was a senior corrections officer, supervised by Hamlette. Hamlette was African American and a minister. Both Brooks and Hamlette were to report to the defendants, Howard Arthur, the Superintendent, and Major Randal Mitchell, the Assistant Superintendent. One of the plaintiff officers alleged that the defendants publicly embarrassed him and discriminated against him, while the other plaintiff officer filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint, alleging that the defendants discriminated against him based on race and religion. The defendants then subsequently terminated the plaintiff officers for disciplinary violations. The plaintiff officers sued the defendants, alleging First Amendment retaliation. The plaintiff officers appealed. On appeal, the court concluded that the officers' First Amendment retaliation claims failed because the officers' speech pertained to personal grievances and complaints about employment rather than "broad matters of policy meriting the protection of the First Amendment." How do you think the court should have ruled? Why? What legal precedents discussed in this case were likely to be relevant to this opinion? Brooks v. Arthur, 685 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2012).