With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir.1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). Even when a plaintiffs federal rights are well-defined, a defendant may successfully claim qualified immunity “if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Kaminsky v. Rosenblum, 929 F.2d 922, 925 (2d Cir.1991). The use of summary judgment by government officials claiming qualified immunity is expressly encouraged to reduce the burden of defending insubstantial suits. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 815-16, 102 S.Ct. at 2736-37; see also Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In short, plaintiffs claims will withstand

A: holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern
B: holding that factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment only when they pertain to the qualified immunity defense
C: holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material
D: holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
C.