in relevant part that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...” U.S. Const, am. I. The First Amendment applies to the states through its incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. See Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 539 U.S. 654, 658, 123 S.Ct. 2554, 156 L.Ed.2d 580 (2003); Deegan v. City of Ithaca, 444 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir.2006). In order to establish a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected speech; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) his speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action. See Zelnik v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 464 F.3d 217, 225 (2d Cir.2006) (citing Morrison v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>)). In proving the third element, a plaintiff
holding that the complaints of a public employee about a reorganization plan were on a matter of public concern even though the employee was primarily motivated by the adverse effect of the plan on himself holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice holding to the same effect holding that a public employee plaintiff is not required to show that the defendants action had an actual chilling effect holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge