Mattingly v. Milligan, 2011 WL 5184283 (E.D.Ark. November 1, 2011)
Plaintiff worked in the county clerk’s office. Her old boss, whom she had supported in the election, lost. Her new boss (the newly-elected county clerk) began cleaning house and laid off some of the staff. Plaintiff survived that round of cuts, but lamented those terminations in a Facebook status update. Empathetic comments from county residents ensued.
The new boss found out about the status update and the comments. So he fired plaintiff. She sued, alleging that the termination violated her right to free speech. The boss moved for summary judgment, but the court denied the motion, sending the case to trial.
Here is some of the relevant Facebook content:
Plaintiff’s status update: So this week not going so good bad stuff all around.
Friend’s comment: Will be praying. Speak over those bad things positively.
Plaintiff’s comment: I am trying my heart goes out to the ladies in my office that were told by letter they were no longer needed…. It’s sad.
* * *
Friend’s comment: He’s making a mistake, but I knew he would, too bad….
* * *
Friend’s comment: I can’t believe a letter would be the manner of delivering such a message! I’m with the others…they will find some thing better and tell them this is an opportunity and not a closed door. Prayers for you and friends.
* * *
Friend’s comment: How could you expect anything else from [defendant], he was an…well nevermind.
Courts addressing claims by public employees who contend that they have been discharged for exercising their right to free speech must employ a two-step inquiry: First, the court must determine whether the speech may be described as “speech on a matter of public concern.” If so, the second step involves balancing the employee’s right to free speech against the interests of the public employer.
In this case, the court found the speech to be on a matter of public concern because:
- the statements were made in a “public domain”
- those who saw the statements (many of whom were residents of the county) understood them to be about terminations in the clerk’s office
- some of the comments contained criticism of the termination decision
- six constituents of the new clerk called his office to complain
- the press and media had covered the situation
As for the second step in the analysis, namely, balancing the employee’s right to free speech against the interests of the public employer, the court did not even undertake a balancing test, as there simply was no evidence that the status update and the comments disrupted the operations of the clerk’s office.