By: Loyd Willaford and Matt Baker
In Williams v. McKee, a detention officer at a jail was terminated because he continuously displayed an offensive bumper sticker on his truck. The Sheriff in charge of the facility repeatedly warned him to take down or cover up the sticker, but these warnings went largely unheeded. After his termination, the detention officer brought a lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s motion to dismiss the suit.
Michael Williams was hired as a detention officer at the Delta County jail. Williams drove his truck to work, and on the truck he had fixed a bumper sticker which read “Still Voting Democrat? You’re Stuck on Stupid.” Williams’ immediate supervisor, Sheriff Fred McKee, received a complaint about the sticker from a citizen. McKee instructed Williams to park somewhere else or cover up his sticker. Williams initially complied but would repeatedly leave the sticker uncovered at work. McKee became angry with Williams, and in turn Williams wrote a letter to McKee that was written in an insubordinate manner. McKee then fired Williams.
Williams brought a suit against McKee alleging that his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated and that McKee had denied him due process in firing him without a chance for appeal. A lower court dismissed the claim, and the Tenth Circuit Court upheld this motion to dismiss. While Williams was engaging in political speech, which is of interest to the public and generally protected, the court held that the Sheriff had a stronger interest in workplace efficiency:
When all the factual averments set out in the amended complaint are considered, this court concludes Sheriff McKee’s interests in maintaining the appearance of impartiality and ensuring workplace efficiency outweigh Williams’s interest in engaging in the particular type of speech at issue in this case.
The Court found Williams’ speech was not merely political, it was inflammatory and offensive. At least one citizen of the county associated this inflammatory rhetoric with the Sheriff’s Department and the jail. Thus Sheriff McKee had a strong interest in maintaining efficiency and the appearance of impartiality. This interest outweighed Williams’ interest in engaging in this form of speech.
Williams also asserted that he had a due process claim because he was fired without a chance to appeal. However, procedural due process only applies to property rights. A person can have a property right in a job if, for example, they have tenure or some other right granted by law. But Williams was an at-will employee, with no such right. Accordingly, his due process claim was also dismissed.
This case illustrates the balancing act Courts engage in when deciding whether a public employer violates the First Amendment. To resolve these issues, courts apply what is called the Pickering/Connick test. To pass this test, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she was not speaking pursuant to his official duties; (2) the speech was on a matter of public concern; (3) the employer’s interest in fostering efficiency in the workplace did not outweigh the employee’s First Amendment interest; and (4) the protected conduct motivated the adverse employment action. In this case, the Court seized on the fact that the bumper sticker was divisive and the Sheriff did not demand the bumper sticker be removed, but merely ordered the deputy to park in a non-public space or cover the bumper-sticker. The Court ruled that the necessity of appearing non-partisan and avoiding conflict in the workplace outweighed the employee’s free speech rights.
This case also illustrates the importance of having a union. The deputy sheriff in this case was not in a union and was, thus, employed at-will. This meant he could be fired for any reason so long as it was not an illegal reason. This meant he had no Loudermill rights. Had the deputy been in a union with just-cause protection, it is likely he would not have been fired or if he had been fired, an arbitrator would have reinstated him.
Finally, this case shows how hostile some courts are to employment laws claims. The fact that a public entity can fire an employee over content on the employee’s private vehicle and receive no protection in the federal courts is truly unfortunate. Even more unfortunate was the fact that the deputy lost another public job when he mentioned he was considering suing the sheriff. The deputy did not make First Amendment claims regarding this firing, so the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on the Right to Free Speech.**
