the public employer is not liable if it demonstrates that it would have taken the same adverse action even absent the protected speech. Mandell, 316 F.3d at 382-83; Cobb, 363 F.3d at 102. With these principles in mind, I turn to Anemone’s allegations. 1. Relationship of Anemone’s Speech to Matter of Public Concern “As a general rule, speech on ‘any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ is protected by the First Amendment.” Morris, 196 F.3d at 110 (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684). Speech relating to public corruption and/or a public entity’s failure to adequately or properly investigate such corruption lies comfortably within these categories of protected expression. See, e.g., Vasbinder v. Ambach, 926 F.2d 1333, 1340, 1341 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Rookard v. Health & Hosps. Corp., 710 F.2d
recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern holding that employees contact with fbi regarding defendants potential fraud theft and misallocation of public funds was a matter of public concern holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern 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