derived from his police report of the Kelleher incident, such speech is not protected in the context of public employment. Defs.’ Mem. at 4. In support of their argument they cite Tang v. State of Rhode Island, Dep’t of Elderly Affairs which ruled that an employee’s personal complaints about her working conditions did not constitute a matter of public concern. Tang, 163 F.3d at 12-13. .In Tang, the working conditions complained of included inter alia being placed on administrative leave and being relocated within the building. Id. at 12 .n. 5. There is a First Amendment distinction, however, between complaints about these types of working conditions, which are not protected and complaints about fellow employees’ official misconduct, which are protected. Guilloty Perez, 339 F.3d at 52 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Torres-Rosado v.
holding that law enforcement agents internal reports of misconduct by fellow officers involved matters of public concern and contrasting such speech with employees complaints in tang holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern