Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Janus vs. AFSCME. The opinion prohibits public employers from collecting fair share fees from employees who have refused to join a union. In the aftermath of Janus, public employers need to be taking immediate steps to stop any such deductions. They also need to prepare for current union members who may seek to revoke any authorization that they had previously provided. Continue reading
On Monday, February 26th, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, a case that could have a substantial impact on Delaware’s public-sector employers and employees. The Court is being asked to decide whether a public-sector employee who refuses to join a union can be required to pay so-called fair share fees to the union.
Earlier this week, I wrote about the issue of threats made via Facebook constitute constitutionally protected speech. Today’s post also is about threats made via Facebook but in the context of the workplace. The case, decided by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, is timed perfectly for my road trip tomorrow to Ohio.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, an employee, a Senior Parole Officer, was sent for an independent medical exam after she posted a Facebook comment that her employer believed to be a threat. The comment was in reference to shooting parolees. The employee claimed that the comment was a joke. The psychologist who conducted the exam cleared her to return to work, finding no evidence of depression, anxiety, or mood disturbance. Continue reading
The intersection of Facebook use and Free Speech is complicated. Complicated enough, in fact, that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the subject when it decides a case it is scheduled to hear argument in today, Elonis v. United States.
The basic legal principle at issue is what constitutes a “true threat.” It is a crime to use the phone or Internet to make a “threat to injure” another person. And “true threats” are not protected as speech under the First Amendment. So, “true threats” to injure another made via Facebook can be punishable as crimes. Otherwise, the speech would be protected by the constitution and could not be considered criminal.
But what’s a “true threat?” Is that question to be answered by the “reasonable person” who would be subject to the threat? Or does the speaker have to have intended his words as a threat to constitute a criminal act?
In Elonis, the defendant was arrested after making violent threats directed to his ex-wife (and others). At trial, he testified that he did not intend to frighten anyone and compared his posts to rap lyrics. The jury didn’t buy it and found that a reasonable person would have viewed the posts as “true threats.” So now the Supreme Court will decide what the “true test” for “true threats” should be.
The legal issue may appear easier than it is. The facts of the case may make the speech and speaker less sympathetic. For example, his Facebook comments included the following about his wife, after she left with their two children:
If I only knew then what I know now, I would have smothered [you] with a pillow, dumped your body in the back seat, dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like rape and murder.
He later posted, “I’m not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.” And, when a court issued the wife a protective order, Elonis posted whether it was “thick enough to stop a bullet.” He also threatened to kill an FBI agent and to slaughter a class of kindergarten students, reports the LA Times.
During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Kimble was employed as a cook and cheerleading coach at a high school. In December 2007, she took the cheerleaders on an overnight Christmas party held in a cabin located outside the county. The trip was not approved as was required by district policy. When administration learned about the trip, Ms. Kimble was instructed that all future out-of-county trips must have prior approval. Continue reading
The plaintiff is a Michigan lawyer. She was placed on the assignment list of the County Probate Court and, as a result, received several case assignments. She made a comment on Facebook about what she believed to be inefficiency at the Clerk’s Office at the Court in a particular case she was handling. She tagged two people in the post, mistakenly identifying them as employees at the Clerk’s Office.
One of the two employees brought the post to the attention of the Court administrator. The administrator never saw the actual post. Two days later, the Court administrator notified the plaintiff by letter that she had been removed from the assignment list because of her comment on Facebook.
The plaintiff attempted to get back on the list multiple times but was unsuccessful and filed suit. The suit alleges several constitutional claims, all but one of which were dismissed by the court. The claim that survived is a claim for unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment-i.e., a free-speech claim.
The court declined to dismiss the free-speech claim for several reasons. First, it held that the plaintiff was speaking as a private citizen-not as an employee-when she made the post. I tend not to agree but, well, we can’t all be right all of the time.
Second, the court held that she was speaking on a matter of public concern. This finding was based, in large part, on the fact that no one could produce a copy of the actual post and, therefore, the court was left to decide the nature of the speech without ever having seen the speech. Yikes.
Why, you ask, did no one produce the post? According to the opinion, because the plaintiff deleted it. Hmmm. That doesn’t seem like exactly the right outcome, does it? Because the plaintiff destroyed evidence, she gets the benefit of the doubt?
Maybe not. But it does teach an important lesson to employers. If you are going to discipline or terminate an employee due to something the employee posted on Facebook-get and keep a copy of the actual post if at all possible. Taking someone’s word for what the post says doesn’t mean that the termination is unlawful but it does likely mean that you’re going to have to work a lot harder to prove your case.
Butler v. Edwards-Brown, No. 13-13738, 2014 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 62032 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2014).
Public-sector employees have First Amendment rights. But those rights are not without limits. Employers, too, have rights-in particular, the right to operate an effective and efficient workplace. Law-enforcement agencies get even more protection because the law recognizes the potential for harm to the department’s reputation and the public’s trust.
And how do all of these rights play out in the context of social media? Usually in the employer’s favor. As yet another court opinion shows, police officers have very little latitude when it comes to posting controversial views on their personal Facebook pages.
The plaintiff in this case, Deputy Chief Rex Duke, worked for the Clayton State University Police Department for eight years with no performance problems. Shortly after the presidential election in November 2012, the plaintiff posted a picture of a confederate flag to his Facebook page with the comment, “It’s time for the second revolution.”
His Facebook profile and posts were accessible only to his Facebook friends. His profile did not indicate that he was employed by the Police Department or even that he was a police officer. And he took the post down within an hour after posting it.
But that hour was long enough for one of his “friends” to send a screenshot of the post to the local TV station. A story ran that evening on the local news about the post and the plaintiff’s position as Deputy Chief.
The Police Department received anonymous complaints about Plaintiff, prompting an investigation. Following he investigation, the plaintiff was demoted in rank and duties and his pay was cut. The plaintiff sued the Police Department, alleging First Amendment retaliation.
The court upheld the demotion, finding no unlawful imposition by the employer on the plaintiff’s right to free speech. The basis for the court’s opinion was the potential disruption and/or actual disruption caused by the plaintiff’s posts. In most circuits, including the 11th Circuit, potential disruption can be sufficient justification for an employer’s interference with an employee’s right to free speech. Here, the court explained, there was not only potential for disruption caused by the plaintiff’s post but there was actual disruption, as well, as evidenced by the complaints the Department received.
Are these consequences harsh? Most definitely. Remember, the post was not publicly accessible and was up only for an hour. But that doesn’t mean that the consequences were unlawful.
Duke v. Hamil, No. 1:13-cv-01663-RWS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13388 (N.D Ga. Feb. 4, 2014).