With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cir.1992) (upholding Section 1983 claim where plaintiffs complaints concerned the routine use of sexually suggestive language by police officers toward all female officers as well as systemic instances of other forms of sexual harassment), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1644, 123 L.Ed.2d 266 (1993); Auriemma v. Rice, 910 F.2d 1449, 1460 (7th Cir.1990) (in banc) (finding public interest where there was a “wholesale change in the highest police echelons allegedly only on a racial basis”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2796, 115 L.Ed.2d 970 (1991). Here, however, there has been no violation of the First Amendment, because Saulpaugh’s complaints were “personal in nature and generally related to her own situation.” Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 781 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 657, 116

A: recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern
B: 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
C: holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern
D: holding that residents complaints about aspects of residency program that negatively affected her did not implicate matters of public concern
D.