the employee’s speech to determine whether it is a matter of public concern. Pressman at 301, 337 S.E.2d at 647, citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 75 L.Ed.2d at 720. Here, the only allegation in plaintiff’s complaint of any “speech” is plaintiff’s assertion that when he was asked to give a urine sample, he said that the defendants’ actions “violated his Constitutionally protected rights including his 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment[] [rights].” There is no indication from the record that defendants fired plaintiff for this “speech.” The record indicates that defendants fired plaintiff because he refused to provide a urine sample. One’s simply saying that giving a urine sample violates one’s own Constitutional rights is not a matter of public concern. Cf. Lenzer at 508, 418 S.E.2d at 283 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, plaintiff does not satisfy the
holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding speech about reasons for school principals resignation a matter of public concern holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern holding commonlaw presumption that defamatory speech is false cannot stand when plaintiff sues media defendant for speech of public concern