In this case, plaintiff was terminated after publicly disclosing the alleged misconduct of defendant Superintendent in steering a prime contract to a minority-owned business. Denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) defendant illegally conditioned plaintiff's public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression; and 2) the illegality of defendants' actions was sufficiently clear, so they had fair notice that their retaliation against plaintiff's constitutionally protected speech would not be shielded by qualified immunity.