Story, Richard W., United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a police officer, brought suit against his employer alleging that he was demoted in violation of the First Amendment as a way “to punish [him] for privately advocating for his personal political beliefs, and sought to restrain his ability to privately advocate for those personal beliefs” by posting anti-government sentiments on Facebook while off duty.
The District Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Facebook post was a matter of personal interest, which is not protected speech for a government employee like plaintiff.
Plaintiff, a Deputy Chief, posted a picture of the Confederate flag with the phrase “It’s time for the second revolution” on Facebook. He was demoted and his pay cut when his superiors discovered the post via comments from the public. The court found that because of his position and status as a government employee, “[t]he government as employer has a stronger interest in regulating the speech of its employees than in regulating the speech of the citizenry in general.” The court found that the government’s interests outweighed plaintiff’s interests in this case, and the speech was not covered by the First Amendment.
Plaintiff’s post was still not protected by the First Amendment even though plaintiff was off duty, off campus, and only intended the material for his Facebook friends. This is true because plaintiff's post on Facebook not only offended many people who saw it, it reflected negatively on the police department that plaintiff represented even while off duty and could lead some to view plaintiff as having certain prejudices.
The court commented:
[D]espite his intentions and his quick removal of it, the post became public after someone provided the image to a television station. This illustrates the very gamble individuals take in posting content on the Internet and the frequent lack of control one has over its further dissemination.
v.
Bobby HAMIL, both individually and in his official capacity as the Chief of Police of Clayton State University, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Defendants
Counsel
*1293 James E. Radford, William Caleb Gross, James Radford, LLC, Decatur, GA, for Plaintiff.Eve Anne Appelbaum, Appelbaum & Associates, P.C., Katherine Powers Stoff, State of Georgia Law Department, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.
ORDER
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ....
**9 When close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer's judgment is appropriate. Furthermore, we do not see the necessity for an employer to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.