and (3) a causal connection exists between [her] speech and the adverse employment determination, so that it can be said that [her] speech was a motivating factor in the determination.” Morris v. Lindan, 196 F.3d 102, 110 (2d Cir. 1999). First, to engage in constitutionally protected speech, the plaintiff must have spoken as a citizen on “on a matter of ... political, social, or other concern to the community.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A] public employee does not relinquish First Amendment rights to comment on matters of public interest by virtue of government employment.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); see also Givhan v. W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415-16, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (<HOLDING>). “Government employees are often in the best
recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that the first amendment protects the right to criticize a grand jury investigation holding that first amendment protects public employees right to communicate privately or publicly with his employer holding in defamation context that first amendment protects speech regarding a public official unless made with actual malice recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern