bec e in the form of private communications with defendants, as opposed to a letter to a newspaper or in a public speech, is not determinative as to whether the alleged speech touched on matters of public concern. See Givhan v. Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 414-15, 99 S.Ct. 693, 695-97, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). While the relative prominence of matters of public concern in the speech by plaintiff, as opposed to the prominence of matters of purely personal concern, is not clear from the complaint, taking all inferences in the favor of plaintiff this Court cannot say at this time that the speech alleged by plaintiff was on matters of purely personal concern and so outside of the protection of the First Amendment. See Zamboni v. Stamler, 847 F.2d 73, 77-78 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 899, 109 S.Ct. 245,
holding in part that complaints focused on individual compensation do not involve a matter of public concern holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on his or her employers reaction to the speech holding that private complaints by public employee that his responsibilities were being lessened and his recommendations were not being followed were at least for the most part not on a matter of public concern 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 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