because of (1) non-compliance with employer protocols, and (2) the passage of time and distance between their utterance in Virginia and the complained-of adverse employment action in New York. After analyzing the relevant considerations, we determine that, for the reasons stated below, the New York forgery accusation was not protected speech, but that the Virginia abuse report is. 1. The Forgery Incident Nagle argues that any personal interest she may have had in speaking about the forgery incident does not do away with whatever First Amendment protection the speech is entitled to. We agree that the primary question for First Amendment purposes is whether the matter is of public concern, not whether the speech was also made to serve some private interest. Cf. Reuland, 460 F.3d at 415 (<HOLDING>). Nagle further argues that the fact that the
recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate 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 holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern